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

1313234363739

Posts

  • JuliusJulius 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.

    lol no it isn't. The USA hasn't accidentally failed to recognize the ICC. It is not a mainstream position in all other countries that international law can just be ignored. There is very much a belief that the US is the only decider in extradition to other countries, while other countries should give high priority to US demands. The USA doesn't shirk from threats of sanctions and other responses to get its way. Primarily, the US is incredibly reluctant to extradite American citizens, yet it demands extradition to the US is a given. (To be fair, they are the most gung-ho about extraditing American citizens back to the USA. An important factor is the belief that US citizens should always face US justice no matter where they are, which isn't even that unreasonable.)

    Other countries aren't like that. Some are, Russia, China and Israel for example, but a lot are far less insular. There are of course calls to bring back citizens, but they tend to be less common and successful. Every country wants jurisdiction over its own citizens, not all will assert they are the only legitimate one.


    plus also the USA will literally not extradite US citizens accused of war crimes of course.

    YoutubeDouglasDangerPLAtynicdispatch.oMrVyngaard
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    I mean, the USA (Bush) went to war with Afghanistan because they wouldn't unconditionally hand over Bin Laden. Pretty sure not all other countries would resort directly to that.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    I mean, the USA (Bush) went to war with Afghanistan because they wouldn't unconditionally hand over Bin Laden. Pretty sure not all other countries would resort directly to that.

    Most don't have the soft or hard power to do that, but many would if they could. Not to mention there was more to that then simply bin Laden it was his terror network itself. Cutting off the head will slow it down, but not kill it. But if he happened to be in Canada you can bet the US would scoop him up ASAP.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    I mean, the USA (Bush) went to war with Afghanistan because they wouldn't unconditionally hand over Bin Laden. Pretty sure not all other countries would resort directly to that.

    Most don't have the soft or hard power to do that, but many would if they could. Not to mention there was more to that then simply bin Laden it was his terror network itself. Cutting off the head will slow it down, but not kill it. But if he happened to be in Canada you can bet the US would scoop him up ASAP.

    Regardless of whether other nations would, they don't. And while Bush also demanded the surrender of other people, he still went to war over them not immediately satisfying all conditions. He flat out ignored the offer of a trial in a neutral third party country, something that seems incredibly fair. And my point is that not all countries do this, not even that it is wrong for a country to do this. Your defense is simply irrelevant to the point even if it was a good one.

    like, I go "not all countries act like the USA" and you go "Yes". How am I supposed to respond?

  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    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.

    I am starting to wonder if that was the cause for arrest.

    Wild irresponsible speculation time.

    But if the cause of the arrest was violating the Iranian sanctions, why bother concealing that? They are not completely popular inside the US and they sure as shit are seen as irrational, irresponsible and petty bullshit outside the US.

    If you have already violated the sanctions and are going to have to go to trial for that, why bother hiding it?

    Most people world wide are going to have the Fantomas-Julius reaction. Might as well reap the PR boon.

    The only reason I can see to hide the charges is if it is for something that is not going to be seen as positive.

    shryke wrote: »
    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    I mean, the USA (Bush) went to war with Afghanistan because they wouldn't unconditionally hand over Bin Laden. Pretty sure not all other countries would resort directly to that.

    And to be fair to them, the moment that we had Bin Laden in something close to our custody, we immediately killed him.

    JuliusFANTOMAS
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 7
    Julius wrote: »
    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.

    lol no it isn't. The USA hasn't accidentally failed to recognize the ICC. It is not a mainstream position in all other countries that international law can just be ignored. There is very much a belief that the US is the only decider in extradition to other countries, while other countries should give high priority to US demands. The USA doesn't shirk from threats of sanctions and other responses to get its way. Primarily, the US is incredibly reluctant to extradite American citizens, yet it demands extradition to the US is a given. (To be fair, they are the most gung-ho about extraditing American citizens back to the USA. An important factor is the belief that US citizens should always face US justice no matter where they are, which isn't even that unreasonable.)

    Other countries aren't like that. Some are, Russia, China and Israel for example, but a lot are far less insular. There are of course calls to bring back citizens, but they tend to be less common and successful. Every country wants jurisdiction over its own citizens, not all will assert they are the only legitimate one.


    plus also the USA will literally not extradite US citizens accused of war crimes of course.

    No. This is not remotely true. Canada frequently has internal political debates about whether to extradite to other countries. One major issue, specifically, w.r.t. Canada extraditing to the US is that Canada refuses to extradite anyone who may face the death penalty, and this is a matter that has been the centre of major political debate before. More broadly, Canada extradites very frequently, despite this impediment: 90% of individuals whose extradition has been requested are extradited from Canada (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extradition-arrest-canada-diab-1.4683289). Canada has also signed an extradition treaty with China, so your desire to smear the US as a unique actor in this regard is misguided. We extradite everyone everywhere, with some exceptions, because we're just motherfucking polite like that, not because the US is bullying us or whatever.**

    Also, the US frequently extradites US citizens to Canada, so you're wrong about that too. It's simply a result of the highly integrated economies and open borders between the two countries. Canada refusing to extradite Vietnam War conscientious objectors was a really big deal for both countries.


    That is to say, whatever Americans may believe or not about extradition does not reflect what other countries think about extradition, and you should educate yourself about how extradition is effected in other countries before making blanket statements that the US's position is unique. There are variations in each country's extradition policies, but the supposition that the US never extradites out and demands a lot of extraditions in, and that this is unique,* is blatantly false. Matters of the ICC and ICJ are entirely separate from matters of bog-standard national law violations.


    * Especially since China is, arguably, a nation that never extradites out and only extradites in, much MORE so than the US, so harharhar, irony. (China also considers anybody of Chinese descent to be a Chinese national subject to their domestic laws, regardless of whether they've ever lived in China, so that's another thing that the US does not do.)

    ** Actually, to be clear, we extradite a lot not because we don't give a shit about Canadian citizens, but because we also don't want American criminals here in Canada. Canada and the US have been extraditing between each other since the 1700s. That's a consequence of having the world's longest land border, most of it unguarded. If we didn't aggressively extradite to the US, we'd just be home to a ton of US criminals all fleeing justice, and that's hardly beneficial to Canada either. It's in both Canada's and the US's interest to have extradition occur smoothly and quickly between the two nations, and it does. It's one of the facts of existence for small countries, especially one with a less punitive incarceration system: you don't want to turn into a haven for criminals from larger countries. We wouldn't even have the resources to prosecute and incarcerate all of them if we didn't extradite and instead imprisoned them here.

    hippofant on
    shrykeCaedwyrGnome-InterruptusTubularLuggage
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    I mean, the USA (Bush) went to war with Afghanistan because they wouldn't unconditionally hand over Bin Laden. Pretty sure not all other countries would resort directly to that.

    And to be fair to them, the moment that we had Bin Laden in something close to our custody, we immediately killed him.

    The would probably have preferred not being invaded though. Honestly they would probably have been fine with his death, though maybe not the extrajudicial assassination bit.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited December 7
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    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.

    lol no it isn't. The USA hasn't accidentally failed to recognize the ICC. It is not a mainstream position in all other countries that international law can just be ignored. There is very much a belief that the US is the only decider in extradition to other countries, while other countries should give high priority to US demands. The USA doesn't shirk from threats of sanctions and other responses to get its way. Primarily, the US is incredibly reluctant to extradite American citizens, yet it demands extradition to the US is a given. (To be fair, they are the most gung-ho about extraditing American citizens back to the USA. An important factor is the belief that US citizens should always face US justice no matter where they are, which isn't even that unreasonable.)

    Other countries aren't like that. Some are, Russia, China and Israel for example, but a lot are far less insular. There are of course calls to bring back citizens, but they tend to be less common and successful. Every country wants jurisdiction over its own citizens, not all will assert they are the only legitimate one.


    plus also the USA will literally not extradite US citizens accused of war crimes of course.

    No. This is not remotely true. Canada frequently has internal political debates about whether to extradite to other countries. One major issue, specifically, w.r.t. Canada extraditing to the US is that Canada refuses to extradite anyone who may face the death penalty, and this is a matter that has been the centre of major political debate before. More broadly, Canada extradites very frequently, despite this impediment: 90% of individuals whose extradition has been requested are extradited from Canada (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extradition-arrest-canada-diab-1.4683289). Canada has also signed an extradition treaty with China, so your desire to smear the US as a unique actor in this regard is misguided.

    Also, the US frequently extradites US citizens to Canada, so you're wrong about that too. It's simply a result of the highly integrated economies and open borders between the two countries. Canada refusing to extradite Vietnam War conscientious objectors was a really big deal for both countries.


    That is to say, whatever Americans may believe or not about extradition does not reflect what other countries think about extradition, and you should educate yourself about how extradition is effected in other countries before making blanket statements that the US's position is unique. There are variations in each country's extradition policies, but the supposition that the US never extradites out and demands a lot of extraditions in, and that this is unique,* is blatantly false. Matters of the ICC and ICJ are entirely separate from matters of bog-standard national law violations.


    * Especially since China is, arguably, a nation that never extradites out and only extradites in, much MORE so than the US, so harharhar, irony. (China also considers anybody of Chinese descent to be a Chinese national subject to their domestic laws, regardless of whether they've ever lived in China, so that's another thing that the US does not do.)

    I am not wrong about anything. The suggestion is that Americans don't like extraditing Americans, and you say that is the same for every other country. The attitude towards the ICC and such already prove that is not true.

    I never said the USA doesn't extradite people, or that Canada extradites all people without question. I am also super confused about how the fact that Canada extradites frequently and to China is a point against me. I am saying the USA doesn't like extradition, not that Canada does. How is that not an argument for my position?

    I also never said the USA was unique. I literally said Russia, China and Israel were the same. If not exactly, at least broadly in most regards. My point is that that is not all nations, not even most nations. Harry might be right about that being so because they do not have the power, but that doesn't matter. The fact that the USA is obviously not the only one amongst these nations is irrelevant, I fail to see how it even could matter.

    Edit: I do think there has been some confusion here. I read Thawmus as saying the USA is reluctant to extradite it's own citizens, but very concerned with people being extradited to the USA. I think this is right, and that a lot of other nations (including Canada) have a more balanced approach.

    Julius on
    Youtube
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 7
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    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.

    lol no it isn't. The USA hasn't accidentally failed to recognize the ICC. It is not a mainstream position in all other countries that international law can just be ignored. There is very much a belief that the US is the only decider in extradition to other countries, while other countries should give high priority to US demands. The USA doesn't shirk from threats of sanctions and other responses to get its way. Primarily, the US is incredibly reluctant to extradite American citizens, yet it demands extradition to the US is a given. (To be fair, they are the most gung-ho about extraditing American citizens back to the USA. An important factor is the belief that US citizens should always face US justice no matter where they are, which isn't even that unreasonable.)

    Other countries aren't like that. Some are, Russia, China and Israel for example, but a lot are far less insular. There are of course calls to bring back citizens, but they tend to be less common and successful. Every country wants jurisdiction over its own citizens, not all will assert they are the only legitimate one.


    plus also the USA will literally not extradite US citizens accused of war crimes of course.

    No. This is not remotely true. Canada frequently has internal political debates about whether to extradite to other countries. One major issue, specifically, w.r.t. Canada extraditing to the US is that Canada refuses to extradite anyone who may face the death penalty, and this is a matter that has been the centre of major political debate before. More broadly, Canada extradites very frequently, despite this impediment: 90% of individuals whose extradition has been requested are extradited from Canada (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extradition-arrest-canada-diab-1.4683289). Canada has also signed an extradition treaty with China, so your desire to smear the US as a unique actor in this regard is misguided.

    Also, the US frequently extradites US citizens to Canada, so you're wrong about that too. It's simply a result of the highly integrated economies and open borders between the two countries. Canada refusing to extradite Vietnam War conscientious objectors was a really big deal for both countries.


    That is to say, whatever Americans may believe or not about extradition does not reflect what other countries think about extradition, and you should educate yourself about how extradition is effected in other countries before making blanket statements that the US's position is unique. There are variations in each country's extradition policies, but the supposition that the US never extradites out and demands a lot of extraditions in, and that this is unique,* is blatantly false. Matters of the ICC and ICJ are entirely separate from matters of bog-standard national law violations.


    * Especially since China is, arguably, a nation that never extradites out and only extradites in, much MORE so than the US, so harharhar, irony. (China also considers anybody of Chinese descent to be a Chinese national subject to their domestic laws, regardless of whether they've ever lived in China, so that's another thing that the US does not do.)

    I am not wrong about anything. The suggestion is that Americans don't like extraditing Americans, and you say that is the same for every other country. The attitude towards the ICC and such already prove that is not true.

    I never said the USA doesn't extradite people, or that Canada extradites all people without question. I am also super confused about how the fact that Canada extradites frequently and to China is a point against me. I am saying the USA doesn't like extradition, not that Canada does. How is that not an argument for my position?

    I also never said the USA was unique. I literally said Russia, China and Israel were the same. If not exactly, at least broadly in most regards. My point is that that is not all nations, not even most nations. Harry might be right about that being so because they do not have the power, but that doesn't matter. The fact that the USA is obviously not the only one amongst these nations is irrelevant, I fail to see how it even could matter.

    No, absolutely most countries, for sure. You cite the ICC, for some god-unknown reason, and it's like... who's been tried at the ICC other than leaders who've been deposed, and are now being sent to The Hague by the people who overthrew them? The ICC has indicted all of 43 people. 12 are at large, and of the 31 who've been arrested, 3 have not been turned over. The people going to the ICC are the exception, not the rule. Not being part of the ICC has no relevance to broader questions of extradition policy.

    There are other factors involved in extradition policies, but virtually no country likes extraditing their own citizens. They're matters of intense political debate. There are just other realities that countries have to deal with.

    And again, no, the US is not incredibly reluctant to extradite American citizens. They extradite to Canada. We extradite to the US. Like, your whole shtick about the one-sidedness of US extradition policy is absurd in the face of the facts. US-Canada extradition is a well-oiled machine that works both ways. Your attempt to portray the US as this sort of global bully is ... I don't disagree in general, but it's not relevant to the matter of extradition, which is usually arranged via mutual, bidirectional treaties, and the US hasn't particularly acted in bad faith in the realm of extradition. For example, the Amanda Knox case and the very possibility that the US might refuse to extradite her back to Italy was a major political issue, as it would be a nearly unprecedented refusal by the US.

    There is the matter that US citizens commit a lot of crimes overseas, because there are a lot of them and they are rich so they travel a lot, and that many criminals go to the US, because the US is rich and has a high quality of life and if you've enriched yourself illegally you're very likely to want to travel to the US, but... like... the US being some sort of extradition bully is wholly new to me.*

    * With the exception that the US wants extradition treaties, a lot, and will sometimes bully nations into signing such treaties. Again, cuz of the whole... US citizens being rich and travel a lot and fleeing justice a lot. But they aren't bad faith actors once engaged by these treaties. For example, here is some UK governmental data showing that neither the US nor the UK refused any mutual extradition requests in 5 years: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-us-extradition-numbers-since-26-april-2007 annnd here are some UK politicians complaining that the UK is extraditing too many people to the US: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9349617/Seven-Britons-extradited-for-every-one-American-MP-claims.html Same old, same old. US refusals to extradite are relatively rare, except for, you know, the same countries and situations that I'd largely expect Canada to also refuse to extradite (e.g. not to Iran or North Korea or whatever. Though we do have an extradition treaty with China now. Guess we'll have to see how that plays out in practice, given that they have the death penalty.)

    hippofant on
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    I'm mistrustful of the american punishment-system and the handing over or abduction of people to it.

    FANTOMAS
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    Julius wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    I mean, the USA (Bush) went to war with Afghanistan because they wouldn't unconditionally hand over Bin Laden. Pretty sure not all other countries would resort directly to that.

    And to be fair to them, the moment that we had Bin Laden in something close to our custody, we immediately killed him.

    The would probably have preferred not being invaded though. Honestly they would probably have been fine with his death, though maybe not the extrajudicial assassination bit.

    This tangent is off topic

  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    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.

    lol no it isn't. The USA hasn't accidentally failed to recognize the ICC. It is not a mainstream position in all other countries that international law can just be ignored. There is very much a belief that the US is the only decider in extradition to other countries, while other countries should give high priority to US demands. The USA doesn't shirk from threats of sanctions and other responses to get its way. Primarily, the US is incredibly reluctant to extradite American citizens, yet it demands extradition to the US is a given. (To be fair, they are the most gung-ho about extraditing American citizens back to the USA. An important factor is the belief that US citizens should always face US justice no matter where they are, which isn't even that unreasonable.)

    Other countries aren't like that. Some are, Russia, China and Israel for example, but a lot are far less insular. There are of course calls to bring back citizens, but they tend to be less common and successful. Every country wants jurisdiction over its own citizens, not all will assert they are the only legitimate one.


    plus also the USA will literally not extradite US citizens accused of war crimes of course.

    No. This is not remotely true. Canada frequently has internal political debates about whether to extradite to other countries. One major issue, specifically, w.r.t. Canada extraditing to the US is that Canada refuses to extradite anyone who may face the death penalty, and this is a matter that has been the centre of major political debate before. More broadly, Canada extradites very frequently, despite this impediment: 90% of individuals whose extradition has been requested are extradited from Canada (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extradition-arrest-canada-diab-1.4683289). Canada has also signed an extradition treaty with China, so your desire to smear the US as a unique actor in this regard is misguided.

    Also, the US frequently extradites US citizens to Canada, so you're wrong about that too. It's simply a result of the highly integrated economies and open borders between the two countries. Canada refusing to extradite Vietnam War conscientious objectors was a really big deal for both countries.


    That is to say, whatever Americans may believe or not about extradition does not reflect what other countries think about extradition, and you should educate yourself about how extradition is effected in other countries before making blanket statements that the US's position is unique. There are variations in each country's extradition policies, but the supposition that the US never extradites out and demands a lot of extraditions in, and that this is unique,* is blatantly false. Matters of the ICC and ICJ are entirely separate from matters of bog-standard national law violations.


    * Especially since China is, arguably, a nation that never extradites out and only extradites in, much MORE so than the US, so harharhar, irony. (China also considers anybody of Chinese descent to be a Chinese national subject to their domestic laws, regardless of whether they've ever lived in China, so that's another thing that the US does not do.)

    I am not wrong about anything. The suggestion is that Americans don't like extraditing Americans, and you say that is the same for every other country. The attitude towards the ICC and such already prove that is not true.

    I never said the USA doesn't extradite people, or that Canada extradites all people without question. I am also super confused about how the fact that Canada extradites frequently and to China is a point against me. I am saying the USA doesn't like extradition, not that Canada does. How is that not an argument for my position?

    I also never said the USA was unique. I literally said Russia, China and Israel were the same. If not exactly, at least broadly in most regards. My point is that that is not all nations, not even most nations. Harry might be right about that being so because they do not have the power, but that doesn't matter. The fact that the USA is obviously not the only one amongst these nations is irrelevant, I fail to see how it even could matter.

    No, absolutely most countries, for sure. You cite the ICC, for some god-unknown reason, and it's like... who's been tried at the ICC other than leaders who've been deposed, and are now being sent to The Hague by the people who overthrew them? The ICC has indicted all of 43 people. 12 are at large, and of the 31 who've been arrested, 3 have not been turned over. The people going to the ICC are the exception, not the rule. Not being part of the ICC has no relevance to broader questions of extradition policy.

    There are other factors involved in extradition policies, but virtually no country likes extraditing their own citizens. They're matters of intense political debate. There are just other realities that countries have to deal with.

    And again, no, the US is not incredibly reluctant to extradite American citizens. They extradite to Canada. We extradite to the US. Like, your whole shtick about the one-sidedness of US extradition policy is absurd in the face of the facts. US-Canada extradition is a well-oiled machine that works both ways. Your attempt to portray the US as this sort of global bully is ... I don't disagree in general, but it's not relevant to the matter of extradition, which is usually arranged via mutual, bidirectional treaties, and the US hasn't particularly acted in bad faith in the realm of extradition. For example, the Amanda Knox case and the very possibility that the US might refuse to extradite her back to Italy was a major political issue, as it would be a nearly unprecedented refusal by the US.

    There is the matter that US citizens commit a lot of crimes overseas, because there are a lot of them and they are rich so they travel a lot, and that many criminals go to the US, because the US is rich and has a high quality of life and if you've enriched yourself illegally you're very likely to want to travel to the US, but... like... the US being some sort of extradition bully is wholly new to me.*

    * With the exception that the US wants extradition treaties, a lot, and will sometimes bully nations into signing such treaties. Again, cuz of the whole... US citizens being rich and travel a lot and fleeing justice a lot. But they aren't bad faith actors once engaged by these treaties. For example, here is some UK governmental data showing that neither the US nor the UK refused any mutual extradition requests in 5 years: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-us-extradition-numbers-since-26-april-2007 annnd here are some UK politicians complaining that the UK is extraditing too many people to the US: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9349617/Seven-Britons-extradited-for-every-one-American-MP-claims.html Same old, same old. US refusals to extradite are relatively rare, except for, you know, the same countries and situations that I'd largely expect Canada to also refuse to extradite (e.g. not to Iran or North Korea or whatever. Though we do have an extradition treaty with China now. Guess we'll have to see how that plays out in practice, given that they have the death penalty.)

    You miss the point, wich is not a small one, that the person that might be extradited is not Canadian nor Unitedstatean, so saying that the united states extradites its citizens to the UK or viceversa has very little in common with the particular extradition that triggered this whole tangent. This is akin to an american citizen violating chinese law, being arrested in Russia (where he did not break the law), and being sent to China for a trial.
    Wich, btw, has she been extradited? I thought it wasnt even a fact yet.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited December 7
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    You miss the point, wich is not a small one, that the person that might be extradited is not Canadian nor Unitedstatean, so saying that the united states extradites its citizens to the UK or viceversa has very little in common with the particular extradition that triggered this whole tangent. This is akin to an american citizen violating chinese law, being arrested in Russia (where he did not break the law), and being sent to China for a trial.
    Wich, btw, has she been extradited? I thought it wasnt even a fact yet.

    People don't have to be citizens of a country to be extradited, that's only helpful in countries which won't allow extradition. Allied countries to whoever made the sanctions or laws they broke of said country would be vulnerable to being arrested for extradition if they are deemed worthy enough to get that attention. This is activated whenever hostile countries get sanctions which affects third parties or organisations (America has done this to nations like Iran, Russia and North Korea) and criminals from who broke laws in countries which have powers on the international scope. China does the same thing.

    https://www.wsj.com/ad/cocainenomics
    Facing extradition to the U.S. on drug charges, Escobar vowed never to surrender, telling a meeting of traffickers: “I would rather have a grave in Colombia than a jail cell in the U.S.”

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/yevgeniy-nikulin-linkedin-extradition/index.html
    CNN)An alleged Russian hacker suspected of stealing 117 million LinkedIn passwords in 2012 appeared in federal court in San Francisco Friday morning after being extradited to the United States following a protracted diplomatic struggle between the US and Russia.

    Yevgeniy Nikulin, who arrived in the US overnight, faces cyber criminal charges including cyber intrusion and identity theft. Nikulin entered a not guilty plea to all charges. He declined to provide his name and age when asked by the judge, who then advised him of his right to remain silent, noting that he might already be aware of these rights.

    https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2013/11/20/dea-news-5-extradited-charged-north-korean-drug-trafficking-conspiracy
    WASHINGTON - DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart and Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, today announced the arrests of five defendants - Scott Stammers and Philip Shackels, citizens of the United Kingdom; Ye Tiong Tan Lim, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China; Kelly Allan Reyes Peralta, a citizen of the Philippines; and Alexander Lnu, a/k/a “Alexander Checov,” a/k/a “Alexander Semencov,” a resident of (“Alexander”). Stammers, Shackels, Lim, Reyes Peralta, and Alexander are each charged with conspiring to import 100 kilograms of North Korean produced methamphetamine into the United States.

    Each of the defendants was arrested in Thailand in September. The five defendants were extradited from Thailand, arrived in the Southern District of New York yesterday evening, and are expected to be presented in U.S. Magistrate Court later today.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-crime/china-hails-first-fugitive-extradition-from-u-s-under-trump-idUSKBN18S4L6
    BEIJING (Reuters) - China on Thursday hailed the first extradition of a fugitive suspect from the United States under the Trump administration as a “major achievement” resulting from talks between the two countries’ leaders in April.

    The suspect, only identified by his surname Zhu, was shown on live national television stepping off a United Airlines flight at Beijing airport flanked by two Chinese police officers, his head covered with a black hood.

    The Ministry of Public Security said in a statement Zhu was suspected of crimes involving the “violation of personal rights”.

    A key plank of President Xi Jinping’s sweeping anti-corruption campaign has been the drive to repatriate overseas fugitives suspected of corruption and economic crimes through widely publicised operations dubbed “Fox Hunt” and “Sky Net”.

    Harry Dresden on
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    You miss the point, wich is not a small one, that the person that might be extradited is not Canadian nor Unitedstatean, so saying that the united states extradites its citizens to the UK or viceversa has very little in common with the particular extradition that triggered this whole tangent. This is akin to an american citizen violating chinese law, being arrested in Russia (where he did not break the law), and being sent to China for a trial.
    Wich, btw, has she been extradited? I thought it wasnt even a fact yet.

    People don't have to be citizens of a country to be extradited, that's only helpful in countries which won't allow extradition. Allied countries to whoever made the sanctions or laws they broke of said country would be vulnerable to being arrested for extradition if they are deemed worthy enough to get that attention. This is activated whenever hostile countries get sanctions which affects third parties or organisations (America has done this to nations like Iran, Russia and North Korea) and criminals from who broke laws in countries which have powers on the international scope. China does the same thing.

    https://www.wsj.com/ad/cocainenomics
    Facing extradition to the U.S. on drug charges, Escobar vowed never to surrender, telling a meeting of traffickers: “I would rather have a grave in Colombia than a jail cell in the U.S.”

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/yevgeniy-nikulin-linkedin-extradition/index.html
    CNN)An alleged Russian hacker suspected of stealing 117 million LinkedIn passwords in 2012 appeared in federal court in San Francisco Friday morning after being extradited to the United States following a protracted diplomatic struggle between the US and Russia.

    Yevgeniy Nikulin, who arrived in the US overnight, faces cyber criminal charges including cyber intrusion and identity theft. Nikulin entered a not guilty plea to all charges. He declined to provide his name and age when asked by the judge, who then advised him of his right to remain silent, noting that he might already be aware of these rights.

    https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2013/11/20/dea-news-5-extradited-charged-north-korean-drug-trafficking-conspiracy
    WASHINGTON - DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart and Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, today announced the arrests of five defendants - Scott Stammers and Philip Shackels, citizens of the United Kingdom; Ye Tiong Tan Lim, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China; Kelly Allan Reyes Peralta, a citizen of the Philippines; and Alexander Lnu, a/k/a “Alexander Checov,” a/k/a “Alexander Semencov,” a resident of (“Alexander”). Stammers, Shackels, Lim, Reyes Peralta, and Alexander are each charged with conspiring to import 100 kilograms of North Korean produced methamphetamine into the United States.

    Each of the defendants was arrested in Thailand in September. The five defendants were extradited from Thailand, arrived in the Southern District of New York yesterday evening, and are expected to be presented in U.S. Magistrate Court later today.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-crime/china-hails-first-fugitive-extradition-from-u-s-under-trump-idUSKBN18S4L6
    BEIJING (Reuters) - China on Thursday hailed the first extradition of a fugitive suspect from the United States under the Trump administration as a “major achievement” resulting from talks between the two countries’ leaders in April.

    The suspect, only identified by his surname Zhu, was shown on live national television stepping off a United Airlines flight at Beijing airport flanked by two Chinese police officers, his head covered with a black hood.

    The Ministry of Public Security said in a statement Zhu was suspected of crimes involving the “violation of personal rights”.

    A key plank of President Xi Jinping’s sweeping anti-corruption campaign has been the drive to repatriate overseas fugitives suspected of corruption and economic crimes through widely publicised operations dubbed “Fox Hunt” and “Sky Net”.

    All of those examples are different, they are either citizen of one of the two countries involved in the extradition, or a material crime has been made IN one of the two involved countries.

    I will reiterate, IF she is going to be extradited, wich I still dont know for a fact, IF she was arrested because of the sanctions imposed on Iran by the US (wich hasnt been made clear yet), IF China is not going to go along with the USA in reimposing sanctions on Iran ( Id like to asume that no, but who knows.), then I think its total bullshit and its just Canada helping the US kidnap a citizen from a soveraign nation, absolutely unlawful and not completely out of character with US foreign policy.

    There are a lot of IF´s, I really doubt that will be the scenario when all facts come to light, most likely it will be something about local offices in the US, like evasion or gross infringement on privacy laws etc. wich would also explain why Meng doesnt want the facts of the arrest publicly known either.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 7
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    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.

    lol no it isn't. The USA hasn't accidentally failed to recognize the ICC. It is not a mainstream position in all other countries that international law can just be ignored. There is very much a belief that the US is the only decider in extradition to other countries, while other countries should give high priority to US demands. The USA doesn't shirk from threats of sanctions and other responses to get its way. Primarily, the US is incredibly reluctant to extradite American citizens, yet it demands extradition to the US is a given. (To be fair, they are the most gung-ho about extraditing American citizens back to the USA. An important factor is the belief that US citizens should always face US justice no matter where they are, which isn't even that unreasonable.)

    Other countries aren't like that. Some are, Russia, China and Israel for example, but a lot are far less insular. There are of course calls to bring back citizens, but they tend to be less common and successful. Every country wants jurisdiction over its own citizens, not all will assert they are the only legitimate one.


    plus also the USA will literally not extradite US citizens accused of war crimes of course.

    No. This is not remotely true. Canada frequently has internal political debates about whether to extradite to other countries. One major issue, specifically, w.r.t. Canada extraditing to the US is that Canada refuses to extradite anyone who may face the death penalty, and this is a matter that has been the centre of major political debate before. More broadly, Canada extradites very frequently, despite this impediment: 90% of individuals whose extradition has been requested are extradited from Canada (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extradition-arrest-canada-diab-1.4683289). Canada has also signed an extradition treaty with China, so your desire to smear the US as a unique actor in this regard is misguided.

    Also, the US frequently extradites US citizens to Canada, so you're wrong about that too. It's simply a result of the highly integrated economies and open borders between the two countries. Canada refusing to extradite Vietnam War conscientious objectors was a really big deal for both countries.


    That is to say, whatever Americans may believe or not about extradition does not reflect what other countries think about extradition, and you should educate yourself about how extradition is effected in other countries before making blanket statements that the US's position is unique. There are variations in each country's extradition policies, but the supposition that the US never extradites out and demands a lot of extraditions in, and that this is unique,* is blatantly false. Matters of the ICC and ICJ are entirely separate from matters of bog-standard national law violations.


    * Especially since China is, arguably, a nation that never extradites out and only extradites in, much MORE so than the US, so harharhar, irony. (China also considers anybody of Chinese descent to be a Chinese national subject to their domestic laws, regardless of whether they've ever lived in China, so that's another thing that the US does not do.)

    I am not wrong about anything. The suggestion is that Americans don't like extraditing Americans, and you say that is the same for every other country. The attitude towards the ICC and such already prove that is not true.

    I never said the USA doesn't extradite people, or that Canada extradites all people without question. I am also super confused about how the fact that Canada extradites frequently and to China is a point against me. I am saying the USA doesn't like extradition, not that Canada does. How is that not an argument for my position?

    I also never said the USA was unique. I literally said Russia, China and Israel were the same. If not exactly, at least broadly in most regards. My point is that that is not all nations, not even most nations. Harry might be right about that being so because they do not have the power, but that doesn't matter. The fact that the USA is obviously not the only one amongst these nations is irrelevant, I fail to see how it even could matter.

    No, absolutely most countries, for sure. You cite the ICC, for some god-unknown reason, and it's like... who's been tried at the ICC other than leaders who've been deposed, and are now being sent to The Hague by the people who overthrew them? The ICC has indicted all of 43 people. 12 are at large, and of the 31 who've been arrested, 3 have not been turned over. The people going to the ICC are the exception, not the rule. Not being part of the ICC has no relevance to broader questions of extradition policy.

    There are other factors involved in extradition policies, but virtually no country likes extraditing their own citizens. They're matters of intense political debate. There are just other realities that countries have to deal with.

    And again, no, the US is not incredibly reluctant to extradite American citizens. They extradite to Canada. We extradite to the US. Like, your whole shtick about the one-sidedness of US extradition policy is absurd in the face of the facts. US-Canada extradition is a well-oiled machine that works both ways. Your attempt to portray the US as this sort of global bully is ... I don't disagree in general, but it's not relevant to the matter of extradition, which is usually arranged via mutual, bidirectional treaties, and the US hasn't particularly acted in bad faith in the realm of extradition. For example, the Amanda Knox case and the very possibility that the US might refuse to extradite her back to Italy was a major political issue, as it would be a nearly unprecedented refusal by the US.

    There is the matter that US citizens commit a lot of crimes overseas, because there are a lot of them and they are rich so they travel a lot, and that many criminals go to the US, because the US is rich and has a high quality of life and if you've enriched yourself illegally you're very likely to want to travel to the US, but... like... the US being some sort of extradition bully is wholly new to me.*

    * With the exception that the US wants extradition treaties, a lot, and will sometimes bully nations into signing such treaties. Again, cuz of the whole... US citizens being rich and travel a lot and fleeing justice a lot. But they aren't bad faith actors once engaged by these treaties. For example, here is some UK governmental data showing that neither the US nor the UK refused any mutual extradition requests in 5 years: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-us-extradition-numbers-since-26-april-2007 annnd here are some UK politicians complaining that the UK is extraditing too many people to the US: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9349617/Seven-Britons-extradited-for-every-one-American-MP-claims.html Same old, same old. US refusals to extradite are relatively rare, except for, you know, the same countries and situations that I'd largely expect Canada to also refuse to extradite (e.g. not to Iran or North Korea or whatever. Though we do have an extradition treaty with China now. Guess we'll have to see how that plays out in practice, given that they have the death penalty.)

    You miss the point, wich is not a small one, that the person that might be extradited is not Canadian nor Unitedstatean, so saying that the united states extradites its citizens to the UK or viceversa has very little in common with the particular extradition that triggered this whole tangent. This is akin to an american citizen violating chinese law, being arrested in Russia (where he did not break the law), and being sent to China for a trial.
    Wich, btw, has she been extradited? I thought it wasnt even a fact yet.

    This is not new:

    First ever 'Chinese spy' extradited to stand trial in US
    Russian rage over Finland extradition to US
    Russia, US battle for extradition of accused hacker Nikulin
    Chinese Businessman Fights US Extradition

    Like... tourists come to the US. They commit crimes. They flee to Canada. What exactly do you think Canada does with these individuals? Like... what could you possibly expect Canada to do?*



    IIRC, there was a case of Russia extraditing a US citizen to China for crimes he committed there, that I heard about on the Bombshells podcast a long time ago, but I can't find any links to it right now, cuz Google's all TRUMP PUTIN HUAWEI. There was this case of Spain extraditing Taiwanese citizens back to China: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2124886/china-hails-spains-decision-allow-extradition-taiwanese Here's a similar case from Kenya: https://thediplomat.com/2016/04/china-abducts-taiwanese-in-kenya/ Here's an ongoing case of a Korean-New Zealander fighting extradition to China: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12090328

    That extradition works like this should have been no surprise to a top executive with a major Chinese firm that receives state support. That's what makes this so puzzling to me. (Though Occam's Razor would suggest that it was just a random fuckup.)

    * I suppose, they could just try them themselves, like China did with this American triple-murderer: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-china-20180506-story.html

    hippofant on
    Quid
  • LadaiLadai Registered User regular
    Hey, remember Rex Tillerson? He was the guy who technically ran the state department for a bit.

    Well, after laying low for a while, he last night gave an interview with Bob Schieffer at an event in Houston.

    Some choice quotes, courtesy of mother jones:
    [Trump is] pretty undisciplined, doesn’t like to read, doesn’t read briefing reports, doesn’t like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just says this is what I believe, and you can try to convince me otherwise, but most of the time you’re not going to do that.

    Which we all knew anyway, I guess. But then there's this:
    We are starkly different in our styles, we did not have a common value system. When the president would say, here’s what I want to do and here’s how I want to do it, and I would have to say to him, Mr. President I understand what you want to do but you can’t do it that way—it violates the law, it violates a treaty—he got really frustrated….I think he grew tired of me being the guy every day who told him he can’t do that, and let’s talk about what we can do.

    Can't have people around telling him what the law is, now can we?

    link: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/12/tillerson-on-trump-we-did-not-have-a-common-value-system/

    4zyrt5.jpg
    MorganVBlackDragon480SmrtnikMartini_Philosopher
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    The publication ban was lifted on Meng Wanzhou's arrest and the details are coming out now:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bail-hearing-huawei-cfo-1.4936150
    CBC News wrote:
    Meng Wanzhou — the chief financial officer for the Chinese tech giant Huawei — is wanted in the U.S. on allegations of fraud, a bail hearing has been told.

    Counsel said Friday that Meng​, 46, is accused of using an unofficial subsidiary called Skycom to evade U.S. sanctions on Iran from 2009 to 2014.

    It's also alleged she made public misrepresentations about Skycom, saying it was separate from Huawei, when the U.S. contends they were the same company doing business with Iran.

    So this is related to earlier Iran sanctions while Obama was president and not the current round with Trump as president based on the dates listed in the court filings.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    The publication ban was lifted on Meng Wanzhou's arrest and the details are coming out now:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bail-hearing-huawei-cfo-1.4936150
    CBC News wrote:
    Meng Wanzhou — the chief financial officer for the Chinese tech giant Huawei — is wanted in the U.S. on allegations of fraud, a bail hearing has been told.

    Counsel said Friday that Meng​, 46, is accused of using an unofficial subsidiary called Skycom to evade U.S. sanctions on Iran from 2009 to 2014.

    It's also alleged she made public misrepresentations about Skycom, saying it was separate from Huawei, when the U.S. contends they were the same company doing business with Iran.

    So this is related to earlier Iran sanctions while Obama was president and not the current round with Trump as president based on the dates listed in the court filings.

    This is basically what Americans organizations do to deal with Taiwan though, create special Taiwan-only subsidiaries, while their core offices continue to deal with China.

    Youtube
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    This was the other bit I could find:



    So the "personal assurance" part seems to be what might have pushed things a bit further. The timing for this could also be related to the current dispute between the US and China.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular


    Neat! Let's just do some war and see what happens.

    Writer for Buzzfeed

    YoutubeJulius
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Good to see a military person indicate the solution here isn’t “blow more shit up”?

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Good to see a military person indicate the solution here isn’t “blow more shit up”?

    Sad to see a military person indicate "Yeah, we're still going to bleed, and they're going to do it quietly, but it's better than admitting we lost."

    Noone wants to be the last casualty in a withdrawl. But isn't it worse to be sent into a warzone, to be injured or die, just to save face for your country? This isn't a noble sacrifice that they're being asked to serve their country with. This is "Our leadership would rather you be in harm's way indefinitely, than admit they fucked up.".

    Styrofoam SammichRchanenmonikerCelestialBadgerIncenjucarForarbrynhrtmnIlpalaGnome-InterruptusYoutubeMrVyngaardPolaritieDuke 2.0
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    This was the other bit I could find:



    So the "personal assurance" part seems to be what might have pushed things a bit further. The timing for this could also be related to the current dispute between the US and China.

    According to the CBC reporter the charges are a little bare bones...

    But yeah, apparently it is not the sanctions so much as the lying to multiple banks about the Huawei/Skycom separation. Which facilitated sanction breaking.

    shryke wrote: »
    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.
    Caedwyr
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Good to see a military person indicate the solution here isn’t “blow more shit up”?

    Sad to see a military person indicate "Yeah, we're still going to bleed, and they're going to do it quietly, but it's better than admitting we lost."

    Noone wants to be the last casualty in a withdrawl. But isn't it worse to be sent into a warzone, to be injured or die, just to save face for your country? This isn't a noble sacrifice that they're being asked to serve their country with. This is "Our leadership would rather you be in harm's way indefinitely, than admit they fucked up.".

    I like the honesty. The truth is no one has any fucking idea what to do about the situation.

    SleepCelestialBadgerCommander ZoomFencingsaxkimeGennenalyse RuebenSkeithElldren
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 8
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    This was the other bit I could find:



    So the "personal assurance" part seems to be what might have pushed things a bit further. The timing for this could also be related to the current dispute between the US and China.

    According to the CBC reporter the charges are a little bare bones...

    But yeah, apparently it is not the sanctions so much as the lying to multiple banks about the Huawei/Skycom separation. Which facilitated sanction breaking.

    Meng has not officially been charged yet. Canadian authorities have detained her in accordance with a detention request from US authorities, who now have 60 days to file an official extradition request. Presumably, that request will contain more details, but even then the details required for extradition are less than what would be required for a conviction in a court of law, so we're still unlikely to see the full details even then.

    China's jumping the gun and applying full-court pressure immediately because legally, the Canadian Minister of Justice has the right to exercise discretion and unilaterally halt an extradition.

    hippofant on
    Rchanen
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Good to see a military person indicate the solution here isn’t “blow more shit up”?

    Sad to see a military person indicate "Yeah, we're still going to bleed, and they're going to do it quietly, but it's better than admitting we lost."

    Noone wants to be the last casualty in a withdrawl. But isn't it worse to be sent into a warzone, to be injured or die, just to save face for your country? This isn't a noble sacrifice that they're being asked to serve their country with. This is "Our leadership would rather you be in harm's way indefinitely, than admit they fucked up.".

    I like the honesty. The truth is no one has any fucking idea what to do about the situation.

    America should have a bit of insight, because the exact same thing happened in Vietnam. The USA withdrew from Vietnam, the world didn't fall to international communism, and the net result is that the war may as well not have happened for all the effect it had (except the cost in individual irreplaceable human lives.)

    OrcaJulius
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Good to see a military person indicate the solution here isn’t “blow more shit up”?

    Sad to see a military person indicate "Yeah, we're still going to bleed, and they're going to do it quietly, but it's better than admitting we lost."

    Noone wants to be the last casualty in a withdrawl. But isn't it worse to be sent into a warzone, to be injured or die, just to save face for your country? This isn't a noble sacrifice that they're being asked to serve their country with. This is "Our leadership would rather you be in harm's way indefinitely, than admit they fucked up.".

    I like the honesty. The truth is no one has any fucking idea what to do about the situation.

    America should have a bit of insight, because the exact same thing happened in Vietnam. The USA withdrew from Vietnam, the world didn't fall to international communism, and the net result is that the war may as well not have happened for all the effect it had (except the cost in individual irreplaceable human lives.)

    Except there's no domino theory behind the Afghanistan situation so the comparison doesn't make sense in that context.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 8
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Good to see a military person indicate the solution here isn’t “blow more shit up”?

    Sad to see a military person indicate "Yeah, we're still going to bleed, and they're going to do it quietly, but it's better than admitting we lost."

    Noone wants to be the last casualty in a withdrawl. But isn't it worse to be sent into a warzone, to be injured or die, just to save face for your country? This isn't a noble sacrifice that they're being asked to serve their country with. This is "Our leadership would rather you be in harm's way indefinitely, than admit they fucked up.".

    I like the honesty. The truth is no one has any fucking idea what to do about the situation.

    America should have a bit of insight, because the exact same thing happened in Vietnam. The USA withdrew from Vietnam, the world didn't fall to international communism, and the net result is that the war may as well not have happened for all the effect it had (except the cost in individual irreplaceable human lives.)

    Except there's no domino theory behind the Afghanistan situation so the comparison doesn't make sense in that context.

    You know, there might not be an explicit one, but there might be one implicitly. Like withdrawing from Afghanistan will make the US look weak, which will encourage... something enemies emboldened, threatening the US, we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, etc..

    hippofant on
    Oghulk
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    The US already looks pretty weak after doing so badly in so many little countries that it should have bulldozered if you just look at military stats.

    YoutubeJulius
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Good to see a military person indicate the solution here isn’t “blow more shit up”?

    Sad to see a military person indicate "Yeah, we're still going to bleed, and they're going to do it quietly, but it's better than admitting we lost."

    Noone wants to be the last casualty in a withdrawl. But isn't it worse to be sent into a warzone, to be injured or die, just to save face for your country? This isn't a noble sacrifice that they're being asked to serve their country with. This is "Our leadership would rather you be in harm's way indefinitely, than admit they fucked up.".

    I like the honesty. The truth is no one has any fucking idea what to do about the situation.

    America should have a bit of insight, because the exact same thing happened in Vietnam. The USA withdrew from Vietnam, the world didn't fall to international communism, and the net result is that the war may as well not have happened for all the effect it had (except the cost in individual irreplaceable human lives.)

    Except there's no domino theory behind the Afghanistan situation so the comparison doesn't make sense in that context.

    You know, there might not be an explicit one, but there might be one implicitly. Like withdrawing from Afghanistan will make the US look weak, which will encourage... something enemies emboldened, threatening the US, we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, etc..

    I don't think that's really a consideration. They only care about looking weak domestically. And I think the more general concern, especially from the military and the war-hawk types that are in or orbiting the federal government, is about the Taliban taking over again.

    The basic issue is that what they want is to be able to set up a strong stable friendly central government and then walk away and not have the whole thing collapse in 6 months or a year or two years. Both for general concerns about the result of that and who would end up on top and because it looks bad domestically. But nobody has any fucking idea how to make that happen. Nothing has worked so far and no one has any better ideas.

    RchanenGnome-Interruptus
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited December 8
    The main thing we learned from Vietnam was not to get into another Vietnam. For a while, anyway. Thus the series of "short victorious wars" we waged for a while, against countries we could knock over in an afternoon, trying to wash away the national stink of failure and shame.

    But then the memory of that faded, and circumstances came knocking on our door, and a new administration was sure we could go into "the graveyard of empires" and have it turn out differently for us.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    monikerTicaldfjamMoridin889OrcaYoutubeJulius
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Afghanistan kinda *looks* like a country you could knock over in an afternoon, since they are pre-industrial outside the major cities.

    Trying to exterminate the Taliban is like trying to exterminate the Republican Party: they are the right-wing religious fundamentalist gun nuts of their culture. They aren't outside invaders like ISIS were. They are a rooted part of the society.

    YoutubeJuliusPLA
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    I think one of the other issues with the Afganistan campaign is that ~putting aside the obvious negative connontations of losing a war to radical fundamentalists~ there is the posibility that it will lead into a review of military doctrine that would be worrying to the Military industrial complex; The US spends more on it's military in a year (about 600 billion) then Afghanistan makes in 25 (they make about 20.8 billion), so How is this not translating to victory?

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    CelestialBadger
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    The US already looks pretty weak after doing so badly in so many little countries that it should have bulldozered if you just look at military stats.

    This is what happens when you try to do it on the cheap.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited December 8
    I'm reminded of a tale, perhaps apocryphal, of a meeting between an American and Viet Cong commander, years later. And the American boasted that they'd won all the stand-up fights, the big setpiece battles.
    The man from the winning side smiled and acknowledged this was true. "It is also irrelevant."

    Remember when the British were the world's pre-eminent military power, and the Americans were the scrappy insurgents, fighting to protect their homes with "dishonorable" tactics like sniping at the soldiers from the treeline as they marched down the roads in neat columns?

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    Harry DresdenDoodmannCelestialBadger
  • OghulkOghulk Aka Mr. RIBS Aka Andre 3001Registered User regular
    Asymmetric warfare tends to win

    raoADVy.png
    Commander ZoomBlackDragon480DoodmannMrVyngaard
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Afghanistan kinda *looks* like a country you could knock over in an afternoon, since they are pre-industrial outside the major cities.

    Trying to exterminate the Taliban is like trying to exterminate the Republican Party: they are the right-wing religious fundamentalist gun nuts of their culture. They aren't outside invaders like ISIS were. They are a rooted part of the society.

    I mean, we did knock it over in an afternoon. The hard part isn't winning the war, it's winning the peace. We aren't all that great at that, and we decided to have another war in the meantime just for kicks.

    FencingsaxshrykeGennenalyse RuebenGnome-InterruptusJulius
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Afghanistan kinda *looks* like a country you could knock over in an afternoon, since they are pre-industrial outside the major cities.

    Trying to exterminate the Taliban is like trying to exterminate the Republican Party: they are the right-wing religious fundamentalist gun nuts of their culture. They aren't outside invaders like ISIS were. They are a rooted part of the society.

    I mean, we did knock it over in an afternoon. The hard part isn't winning the war, it's winning the peace. We aren't all that great at that, and we decided to have another war in the meantime just for kicks.

    You didn't win the war because the Taliban ascribed to Roman philosophy on the subject; that you have only lost when you admit it.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    Rchanen
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited December 8
    And here we are--circling back to the post/speech that started this whole subthread--proposing to keep spending lives and treasure precisely in order to avoid having to do that.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    Julius
Sign In or Register to comment.