Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Also, don't forget the Monroe Doctrine, we own this hemisphere.

We have a law here to discourage child sex tourism. Meaning if you go over seas and break that law you can be charged for it here in Canada even if it wasn't commited on canadian soil. Pretty sure though that it applies to our own citizens though.

At this point the US security services should stop trying to stop sites propogating the data.

For a start mirror sites have stolen nothing, they are republishing data in the public domain. You could argue IP law or copyright, but that involves commercial data not political.

At them moment anyone hosting the leaked info can claim public interest. after all the peo-le a governemnt has cause to guard against access to the data had it within hours. Foreign government and intelligence agencies all have their copy, I suspect most terror organisations etc have too, all within the first few hours.

The only reason to shut down the leaks now is to stop the people from reading the information. Keeping political data from the people as opposed to foreign government or enemies of the state is not the correct function of government censorship.

halonachos wrote:Also, don't forget the Monroe Doctrine, we own this hemisphere.

Crantor wrote:We have a law here to discourage child sex tourism. Meaning if you go over seas and break that law you can be charged for it here in Canada even if it wasn't commited on canadian soil. Pretty sure though that it applies to our own citizens though.

So before the law was passed Canada encouraged child sex tourism?

Why would children want to go on sex tours?

Wait a minute...

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:Saudi Arabia would like to extradite all our women then for not covering up properly? I dont think so.

As far as I know Saudi Arabia has no law about what clothes women wear outside of their country. If they did, they could certainly prosecute someone for it if they so chose. The US wouldn't extradite someone to Saudi Arabia for that crime, and since the US props so much of Saudi Arabia up I doubt they would want to try something that would tick the Us off like that, though talking about 'would like' with a country can get kind of convoluted.

*sigh* Congratulations!! no really!! not like you missed the entire point anyway

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

You murder someone in africa you get charged in africa not the US.

And if that murder is done in a way that is against American law, the US can also charge you with whatever US law you broke if it so chooses.

Aslong as a crime was commited within Americas Juristiction (say if they planned the murder within the US, but good luck trying to get them until after they have served time for murder in Africa)

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

And beleive it or not that "magic law fairy" is the US government, laws they create are only valid for crimes comitted within the US

You're not in charge of the Us governement, the fact that you declare a limit on the US government does not mean that the government recognizes that limit. Can you cite a court case or constitutional provision that limits the US in this way? No, you've just made the limitation up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_jurisdiction

Please actually try and under stand im not saying this would not be a violation of US law if it was in US JURISDICTION

This is not some made up limitation, if i say in my country its illegal to wear a bucket on your head on tuesday there is no possible way i could extradite you and charge you with that crime if you were in another country

I read this whole thread..

The rebellious part of me loves seeing Govts. with egg on their face. The smary sneaky bastards...

The normal part of me thinks, leaking classified american cables is unecessary except to highlight some injustice or wrong doing.. (the Australian Internet fliter list was cool IMO though)

The cynical part of me is unimpressed with what has been leaked, a bunch of embrassing diplomats musings and some data regarding defense that doesn't seem that reveloutionary..

The bored part of me is shocked out how boring these cables are to read. I could never be a spy.. These things are nothing like they show in Spooks.

And the tinfoil hat part of me thinks these leaks are approved by the US intelligence community, using them to introduce new lesgislation so they have more power over the internet. Because surely the CIA could sort out a bunch of journos..

Overall I am well unimpressed.. Assange needs to right some injustice not leak water cooler gossip about the international community.. Also highlight the interesting docs wikileaks theres too many to read.. give me some juicy cliff notes mang.

Shaman wrote:I read this whole thread..

Well you would be the first to do so than.

ChrisWWII wrote:Well, I"m guessing he could be brought over as part of the investigation into the leaks to see if he knows anything.

International extradition doesn't work that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shaman wrote:I read this whole thread..

Ahtman wrote:

Shaman wrote:I read this whole thread..

Well you would be the first to do so than.

The vader pencil case aswell.. heh.

Crantor wrote:We have a law here to discourage child sex tourism. Meaning if you go over seas and break that law you can be charged for it here in Canada even if it wasn't committed on Canadian soil. Pretty sure though that it applies to our own citizens though.

You just answered your own comment. It applies on Canadian citizens so the law can be read on a way that says Canada has always jurisdiction on them. (don´t know if that is part of international law treaties or not but a few countries have similar laws)

But again, Mr Assange is not a US citizen and his supposed crime was not committed within US jurisdiction, so if we believe certain media this is starting to look like a bunch of pissed off bureaucrats and conservative journalists trying to get even after being humiliated for not doing their jobs right.

M.

Just saw this on CNN today. Anonymous taking Wikileaks side....not surprising, but I think that folks should actually take them sorta seriously.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/09/hackers.wikileaks/index.html?hpt=T2

"You don't have to be at your computer. All you've got to do is send Anonymous an e-mail that says, 'I consent to you using my computer, do whatever you like,' " and the people with Anonymous link to your computer, connect it with others who've consented, and use the collective force (among the machines) to launch these attacks," Gregg Housh, a 34-year-old internet activist based in Boston told CNN.

Smart, and if enough folks get on the bandwagon potentially pretty damn scary.

Headline of the day.

"4chan-based group ‘Anonymous’ targets PayPal to support WikiLeaks"

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/splashpage.html

Ok so the guy accused of having his new wife murdered in South Africa is granted bail, whereas Julian Assange is put into remand. Just let me get this right in my head... the guy who could be banged up for 30 years plus in a South African jail is considered a safer bet than a guy who faces a trial in Sweden?

Fairness my ar**!!!

It does make sense. Bail isn't meant to be 'fair' or dependent on the severity of your crime. Bail is based on whether or not you'll try to abscond or flee if you're let go.

Assange was rightly judges as: a) having a high risk of fleeing, b) having no ties to make him want to stay in the UK, so he was denied bail.

If the South African accused murderer has some ties that make it much more likely for him to not want to try and flee the UK, then it makes perfect sense for him to be granted bail while Assange is not.

So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?

Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?

Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?

Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.

Been as Julian Assange handed himself in, maybe common sense isn't your strong point

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?

Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.

In the Uk there have been a number of cases in the past that involved UK citizens who have fled to their extended familie back in India / Pakistan, so my point is valid and very strong.

loki old fart wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?

Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.

Been as Julian Assange handed himself in, maybe common sense isn't your strong point

Like there is such a thing as common sense. If either of you would read what was written just a few posts ago you would realize that turning one's self over doesn't really have much bearing on bail. I imagine the judges that made these determinations know the facts of the cases far better than you, the law better, and thus are in a better position to, you know, make judgments. There was a child rapist in the US that turned himself in and still ended up fleeing the country to France. Turning yourself over is not a guarantee that you won't bugger out.

Wolfstan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?

Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.

In the Uk there have been a number of cases in the past that involved UK citizens who have fled to their extended familie back in India / Pakistan, so my point is valid and very strong.

Your point would only be strong if only people with family in those countries fled every time. I'm willing to bet that people of different backgrounds, even some that only have family in the UK, have jumped bail before. If we use your reasoning we would just have to do away with bail altogether becuase people have skipped before.

Let's be honest though, neither you nor Loki Old Fart are really interested in the actual facts surrounding the cases or else you wouldn't be making these comparisons.

Ahtman wrote:

loki old fart wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?

Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.

Been as Julian Assange handed himself in, maybe common sense isn't your strong point

Like there is such a thing as common sense. If either of you would read what was written just a few posts ago you would realize that turning one's self over doesn't really have much bearing on bail. I imagine the judges that made these determinations know the facts of the cases far better than you, the law better, and thus are in a better position to, you know, make judgments. There was a child rapist in the US that turned himself in and still ended up fleeing the country to France. Turning yourself over is not a guarantee that you won't bugger out.

Wolfstan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?

Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.

In the Uk there have been a number of cases in the past that involved UK citizens who have fled to their extended familie back in India / Pakistan, so my point is valid and very strong.

Your point would only be strong if only people with family in those countries fled every time. I'm willing to bet that people of different backgrounds, even some that only have family in the UK, have jumped bail before. If we use your reasoning we would just have to do away with bail altogether becuase people have skipped before.

Let's be honest though, neither you nor Loki Old Fart are really interested in the actual facts surrounding the cases or else you wouldn't be making these comparisons.

No, my point is that is has happened before. I have no idea how strong those ties are and how many generations of his family have lived in the UK, so it maybe possible he can flee or it may not. So it would be silly to rule it out.

Assange couldn't flee back to Oz and expect to stay free, the other guy could flee and finding him / getting him back would be a nightmare.

Wolfstan wrote:No, my point is that is has happened before.

Since the advent of the idea of bail, people have skipped out on it. The specifics of ethnicity aren't relevant.

Wolfstan wrote:Assange couldn't flee back to Oz and expect to stay free, the other guy could flee and finding him / getting him back would be a nightmare.

If Assange were to flee an international warrant, he isn't going back to Australia. Odds are that he also has a much greater resource pool to draw from in which to illegally get out of the UK.

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?

Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.

It isn't as simple as that. There is clearly a huge political dimension in the Assange case.

I understand, however, that if extradited to Sweden, the US will not be able to try to have him extradited from there without British permission, also, that it will be harder to extradite him from Sweden to the USA than from the UK.

That said, there isn't any suggestion he has committed a crime for which to be extradited to the US, yet, and he will have to go to Sweden first anyway.

Wolfstan wrote:
No, my point is that is has happened before. I have no idea how strong those ties are and how many generations of his family have lived in the UK, so it maybe possible he can flee or it may not. So it would be silly to rule it out.

Those ties are not the only thing considered when they set bail.
Your financial resources, ability to obtain illegal identification/transportation, etc etc etc are too.

Assange couldn't flee back to Oz and expect to stay free, the other guy could flee and finding him / getting him back would be a nightmare.

And how would he leave the country?

In most murder cases, they put you on a no-fly list so you can't flee the country without having a huge pool of resources to draw upon.

Assange has those resources. It's likely your murderer in this instance doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?

Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.

It isn't as simple as that. There is clearly a huge political dimension in the Assange case.

I understand, however, that if extradited to Sweden, the US will not be able to try to have him extradited from there without British permission, also, that it will be harder to extradite him from Sweden to the USA than from the UK.

That said, there isn't any suggestion he has committed a crime for which to be extradited to the US, yet, and he will have to go to Sweden first anyway.

Assange's lawyer is hollering at the media that "it's guaranteed his client will face espionage charges", so I'm guessing the US has begun the process of filing charges with Sweden and starting in on extradition.

If there's a real political dimension, we'll see the UK deny extradition stating that Sweden's case is "flawed" and him shipped off to the US instead.

Peter Wiggin wrote:Just saw this on CNN today. Anonymous taking Wikileaks side....not surprising, but I think that folks should actually take them sorta seriously.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/09/hackers.wikileaks/index.html?hpt=T2

"You don't have to be at your computer. All you've got to do is send Anonymous an e-mail that says, 'I consent to you using my computer, do whatever you like,' " and the people with Anonymous link to your computer, connect it with others who've consented, and use the collective force (among the machines) to launch these attacks," Gregg Housh, a 34-year-old internet activist based in Boston told CNN.

I dont like that. Anonymous as a movement is anti-Scientology. Individuals might use Anonymous-style methods but can hardly speak for Anonymous itself. No-one can. The only thing we can surmise is that as anonymous is anti-Scientiology and not specifically pro-Wikileaks then it stands to reason that some probably many Anonymous members are in fact opposed to what Assange and Wikileaks have done. As iAnonymous is seminally a US based movement most US citizens are getting both embarassed and nationalistically protective over this issue it is not unreasonable to suggest that a majority ogf Anonymous members are likely to be unhappy with Wikileaks right now one way or another.

To the 'it didn't happen on US soil' crowd in general, let me ask a simple question: If the President of the US was visiting another country, and a person in that country assassinated him and was subsequently captured by police in the US, that the US government would say 'welp, it didn't happen on US soil, we've got no charges to press, lets extradite him to the country where it happened and hope they prosecute him', or do you think they would try to prosecute him under the federal statutes that criminalize killing government officials?

Kilkrazy wrote:Constitution of the USA, Section 8, Powers of Congress.

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"

Thanks for pointing out a section of the constitution that explicitly gives congress the power to act outside of US soil, that seems to settle the question rather squarely.

Gibbsey wrote:*sigh* Congratulations!! no really!! not like you missed the entire point anyway

I answered what you wrote. The fact that it was a fairly incoherent mess that didn't really get to a point and confused extradition with prosecution is your fault, not mine.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Aslong as a crime was commited within Americas Juristiction (say if they planned the murder within the US, but good luck trying to get them until after they have served time for murder in Africa)

"Good luck trying to get them" is completely irrelevant to whether or not they have comitted something that the US considers a prosecutable crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_jurisdiction

Extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is asserted by most nations over their military and diplomatic personnel while abroad, and by some nations over subjects like piracy and offenses against the law of nations, such as "crimes against humanity" or genocide, or taxation of income of citizens obtained from foreign sources.

Internet cases raise several troublesome territorial jurisdiction problems. For example, a website may be viewed anywhere in the world, though it is hosted in Anguilla and operated by a California citizen. Courts must decide in which locations, under what circumstances, the exercise of territorial jurisdiction over the citizen for claims arising from the website comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. For more, see Personal jurisdiction in internet cases.

Thanks for quoting a page clearly showing that the US does not believe that a crime must be committed on US soil for the US to prosecute it.

This is not some made up limitation, if i say in my country its illegal to wear a bucket on your head on tuesday there is no possible way i could extradite you and charge you with that crime if you were in another country

It is some made up limitation, your own source shows that the US does not follow the 'only on US soil' concept you're arguing. You also seem adamantly opposed to understanding the difference between prosecution and extradition, they're very seperate things. Extradition is about whether the country the person is currently in wishes to turn you over to the country that says you committed a crime, it's not relevant to the question of whether someone has committed a crime.

Orlanth wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:Just saw this on CNN today. Anonymous taking Wikileaks side....not surprising, but I think that folks should actually take them sorta seriously.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/09/hackers.wikileaks/index.html?hpt=T2

"You don't have to be at your computer. All you've got to do is send Anonymous an e-mail that says, 'I consent to you using my computer, do whatever you like,' " and the people with Anonymous link to your computer, connect it with others who've consented, and use the collective force (among the machines) to launch these attacks," Gregg Housh, a 34-year-old internet activist based in Boston told CNN.

I dont like that. Anonymous as a movement is anti-Scientology. Individuals might use Anonymous-style methods but can hardly speak for Anonymous itself. No-one can. The only thing we can surmise is that as anonymous is anti-Scientiology and not specifically pro-Wikileaks then it stands to reason that some probably many Anonymous members are in fact opposed to what Assange and Wikileaks have done. As iAnonymous is seminally a US based movement most US citizens are getting both embarassed and nationalistically protective over this issue it is not unreasonable to suggest that a majority ogf Anonymous members are likely to be unhappy with Wikileaks right now one way or another.

That is the problem with being Anonymous. Basically it is just a loose collection of anti-establishment feelings, clustered around Internet use. Anyone can claim membership and no-one can tell the difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:To the 'it didn't happen on US soil' crowd in general, let me ask a simple question: If the President of the US was visiting another country, and a person in that country assassinated him and was subsequently captured by police in the US, that the US government would say 'welp, it didn't happen on US soil, we've got no charges to press, lets extradite him to the country where it happened and hope they prosecute him', or do you think they would try to prosecute him under the federal statutes that criminalize killing government officials?

Kilkrazy wrote:Constitution of the USA, Section 8, Powers of Congress.

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"

Thanks for pointing out a section of the constitution that explicitly gives congress the power to act outside of US soil, that seems to settle the question rather squarely.

It doesn't. It gives Congress the power to act within the Law of Nations.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:To the 'it didn't happen on US soil' crowd in general, let me ask a simple question: If the President of the US was visiting another country, and a person in that country assassinated him and was subsequently captured by police in the US, that the US government would say 'welp, it didn't happen on US soil, we've got no charges to press, lets extradite him to the country where it happened and hope they prosecute him', or do you think they would try to prosecute him under the federal statutes that criminalize killing government officials?

Kilkrazy wrote:Constitution of the USA, Section 8, Powers of Congress.

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"

Thanks for pointing out a section of the constitution that explicitly gives congress the power to act outside of US soil, that seems to settle the question rather squarely.

Gibbsey wrote:*sigh* Congratulations!! no really!! not like you missed the entire point anyway

I answered what you wrote. The fact that it was a fairly incoherent mess that didn't really get to a point and confused extradition with prosecution is your fault, not mine.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Aslong as a crime was commited within Americas Juristiction (say if they planned the murder within the US, but good luck trying to get them until after they have served time for murder in Africa)

"Good luck trying to get them" is completely irrelevant to whether or not they have comitted something that the US considers a prosecutable crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_jurisdiction

Extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is asserted by most nations over their military and diplomatic personnel while abroad, and by some nations over subjects like piracy and offenses against the law of nations, such as "crimes against humanity" or genocide, or taxation of income of citizens obtained from foreign sources.

Internet cases raise several troublesome territorial jurisdiction problems. For example, a website may be viewed anywhere in the world, though it is hosted in Anguilla and operated by a California citizen. Courts must decide in which locations, under what circumstances, the exercise of territorial jurisdiction over the citizen for claims arising from the website comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. For more, see Personal jurisdiction in internet cases.

Thanks for quoting a page clearly showing that the US does not believe that a crime must be committed on US soil for the US to prosecute it.

This is not some made up limitation, if i say in my country its illegal to wear a bucket on your head on tuesday there is no possible way i could extradite you and charge you with that crime if you were in another country

It is some made up limitation, your own source shows that the US does not follow the 'only on US soil' concept you're arguing. You also seem adamantly opposed to understanding the difference between prosecution and extradition, they're very seperate things. Extradition is about whether the country the person is currently in wishes to turn you over to the country that says you committed a crime, it's not relevant to the question of whether someone has committed a crime.

Law of Nations does not mean what you think it means.

Also "Good luck trying to get them" READ THE NEXT PART i did not imply he wouldnt be charged, just that the US would have to wait until after he had served time before imprisoning him

"For example, a website may be viewed anywhere in the world, though it is hosted in Anguilla and operated by a California citizen. Courts must decide in which locations"

i was unaware wikileaks was hosted in the US or Assange was a US citizen

Also your Example about the president being killed in a foreign country is idiotic, please point out how this relates to Assange?

EDIT: Also i thought you could only extradite someone if you were going to prosecute someone or at least have proof that you can prosecute someone

loki old fart wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?

Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.

Been as Julian Assange handed himself in, maybe common sense isn't your strong point

Modquisition on: Chillens chillens, lets all remember Dakka Rule #1 and mellow the out.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Thanks for pointing out a section of the constitution that explicitly gives congress the power to act outside of US soil, that seems to settle the question rather squarely.

What this means is the US Government is in a position to request that its rights are heard externally. Within US jurisdiction US law applies, outside US jurisdiction the US can request that US law applies. There are several ways by which the latter can be achieved, extradition is one, proxy trial is another etc.

Orlanth wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Thanks for pointing out a section of the constitution that explicitly gives congress the power to act outside of US soil, that seems to settle the question rather squarely.

What this means is the US Government is in a position to request that its rights are heard externally. Within US jurisdiction US law applies, outside US jurisdiction the US can request that US law applies. There are several ways by which the latter can be achieved, extradition is one, proxy trial is another etc.

Yep although as a country you can really request anything, doesent mean its going to happen. There are only a few places outside of american territory where US laws can apply this includes US Embassies and Military bases.