SW rant time
-
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing so I'm not going to participate in this since logic shows clearly that laws from other countries can be applied to citizens of other countries.
Must be a pretty rosy life in that bubble. Lol
-
@nashbrydges said in SW rant time:
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing so I'm not going to participate in this since logic shows clearly that laws from other countries can be applied to citizens of other countries.
Must be a pretty rosy life in that bubble. Lol
I'm not the one arguing. I made a very clear, and very valid legal point. You argued with me saying that other countries could make laws and apply them to us in the US, which is not correct. They CAN petition the US to make a treaty and make laws that they can then use, but their laws are not being used here, nor ours there. Simply not how it works.
I didn't argue, I defended a point that you argued. And it's very clear that I am correct, there is no way that foreign jurisdictions can just make laws and apply them to you.
-
When the US 'enforces' US law overseas, normally that is illegal terror action. Seizing people from their homes and taking them to the US and then charging them with crimes they did not commit. That's not the same as US law applying to them. That's just might makes right.
-
@nashbrydges said in SW rant time:
... since logic shows clearly that laws from other countries can be applied to citizens of other countries.
I asked for an example of this. I'm not aware of any situation where this has ever been legal. Treaties are not examples, as we discussed, as they require the local jurisdiction to have enacted the foreign laws, meaning they became local.
Without an example, as this is completely illogical for reasons we demonstrated earlier (anyone can just make conflicting laws, charge people with things that are totally protected, etc.) we have to believe that it cannot be true.
-
The concept of "can a US citizen be charged with crimes under foreign laws while in the US" is so absurd that you can't even Google it, Google is certain you are looking for information about commiting crimes while in those other countries.
-
@nashbrydges Someone can be extradited only if they have broken the law in that country. If I hack into servers in Thailand, I am committing a crime in Thailand and can then be legally extradited from the US to Thailand because we do have an extradition treaty with Thailand. If I post on ML and insult their King, which is a crime in Thailand, I cannot be extradited to Thailand.
-
@penguinwrangler said in SW rant time:
@nashbrydges Someone can be extradited only if they have broken the law in that country. If I hack into servers in Thailand, I am committing a crime in Thailand and can then be legally extradited from the US to Thailand because we do have an extradition treaty with Thailand. If I post on ML and insult their King, which is a crime in Thailand, I cannot be extradited to Thailand.
But, of course, could be arrested if you voluntarily traveled to Thailand, as that is totally up to them as to what they can or cannot do.
But exactly, a US citizen or company on US soil is bound only to the laws of the US. The US, also, does not allow citizens to attack foreign businesses even from US soil.
-
I'm very unclear, I feel like the idea that laws from anywhere can be applied anywhere must cause logical problems - like let's say that in one country it is a crime to be of religion X. Do they feel that that might apply to them, even if they don't live there or travel there? Laws conflict, nearly everywhere. Almost no law from one country can be used in another without either already existing there or conflicting with a local law. This isn't a trivial problem. The one that prompted this discussion is a huge example... the right to be forgotten directly conflicts with freedom of press and freedom of speech laws in the US. Its' a nice idea, but you can't just take a law from somewhere else and pop it into the legal framework of another place, it doesn't work.
-
Must be key words here. Something about this thread is triggering a lot of traffic.
-
@scottalanmiller I think it has the trappings of a Left vs Right debate. People are passionate about their politics. Power to the State or power to the individual. Are we sovereign or are we subjects. Just my 2 cents.
-
@popester said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller I think it has the trappings of a Left vs Right debate. People are passionate about their politics. Power to the State or power to the individual. Just my 2 cents.
Sort of, except I'm only discussing what the law is, no discussion what what it should be.
-
@scottalanmiller True Dat. Agreed.
-
@penguinwrangler said in SW rant time:
If I post on ML and insult their King, which is a crime in Thailand, I cannot be extradited to Thailand.
If Thailand chose to document this and then ask for your extradition, you can totally be extradited.
Does not mean that the U.S. agency with authority would agree to the extradition request.
-
@jaredbusch said in SW rant time:
@penguinwrangler said in SW rant time:
If I post on ML and insult their King, which is a crime in Thailand, I cannot be extradited to Thailand.
If Thailand chose to document this and then ask for your extradition, you can totally be extradited.
Does not mean that the U.S. agency with authority would agree to the extradition request.
They can ask for anything. They can just ask that you be executed in the US. Prisoners can just ask to be released. You can always ask.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@jaredbusch said in SW rant time:
@penguinwrangler said in SW rant time:
If I post on ML and insult their King, which is a crime in Thailand, I cannot be extradited to Thailand.
If Thailand chose to document this and then ask for your extradition, you can totally be extradited.
Does not mean that the U.S. agency with authority would agree to the extradition request.
They can ask for anything. They can just ask that you be executed in the US. Prisoners can just ask to be released. You can always ask.
I know, but I am clarifying his incorrect statement.
-
@jaredbusch A person in the State of Missouri filed a pro se case against Wal-Mart and ask for 4 Trillion dollars because they made Twinkies so cheap to buy, how could they help but not get fat. He filed his case, i.e. asked for that...and it was promptly thrown out. So I find your statement to be a little bit ridiculous in nature. Most of the time in extradition cases (even between states in the US) the crime has to be serious enough to warrant the time and cost of transporting the offender. Also what a US citizen can be extradited to a foreign country is covered in the Extradition treaty with that nation. So you could conceivably commit a crime in a country and if you get back to the US not be able to be extradited if the treaty doesn't cover that crime.
-
@penguinwrangler said in SW rant time:
@jaredbusch A person in the State of Missouri filed a pro se case against Wal-Mart and ask for 4 Trillion dollars because they made Twinkies so cheap to buy, how could they help but not get fat. He filed his case, i.e. asked for that...and it was promptly thrown out. So I find your statement to be a little bit ridiculous in nature. Most of the time in extradition cases (even between states in the US) the crime has to be serious enough to warrant the time and cost of transporting the offender. Also what a US citizen can be extradited to a foreign country is covered in the Extradition treaty with that nation. So you could conceivably commit a crime in a country and if you get back to the US not be able to be extradited if the treaty doesn't cover that crime.
You clearly stated cannot be extradited and that is not correct.
You most certainly can be.
Of course can does not mean will be.
-
@penguinwrangler said in SW rant time:
Also what a US citizen can be extradited to a foreign country is covered in the Extradition treaty with that nation. So you could conceivably commit a crime in a country and if you get back to the US not be able to be extradited if the treaty doesn't cover that crime.
No extradition treaty needs to be in place for a foreign entity to ask for extradition.
An extradition treaty will instead say that we (the U.S.) agree that if one of our people breaks one of these select laws of yours, that will will send the person to you upon request. Of the 2 treaty documents I skimmed in the past they both also had various clauses that basically said we will only extradite them if we feel like it.
-
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partII-chap209-sec3196
Dont piss the secretary of state off and you will be fine. I think....
-
Woah... where did this thread go? Anyone spin me up on the last 150 posts in a sentence or two? No way I have time to back-read.
