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.

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 wasn't even talking about the political concerns of the case, which, as you have pointed out, are quite serious as well. No, I was just saying that the idea that someone should be given or revoked bail based solely on whether they have family outside the country is a bit naive and simplistic.

So Shrien Dewani has been given bail... £200,000, electronically tagged, curfew, no previous and his family are upstanding members of the community. However SA police want him but as we can't trust them... oh and they are supposed to have cctv footage backing up their claims

Julian Assange, locked up, no bail as he can't be trusted to flee, based on accusations that were originally dropped.

Yep, nothing going on here at all.

I don't think it's simplistic, it's looking at the evidence.

Julian Assange arranges to give himself up http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-fresh-arrest-warrant

circumstances leading to charges http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html

Wolfstan wrote:
Julian Assange, locked up, no bail as he can't be trusted to flee, based on accusations that were originally dropped.

No bail = quality time with MI6.

Wolfstan wrote:Yep, nothing going on here at all.

I don't think it's simplistic, it's looking at the evidence.

So your argument is that it is a conspiracy. Well bravo.

You sure it isn't more that a brown fella got bail and the white guy didn't? I mean, lots of people during that same time period got bail but you seem obsessed with the guy of Pakistani/Indian descent.

You call for looking at the evidence, perhaps you should take your own advice. i would stake an army box you haven't read the case files, just news reports, and probably just internet news reports. I'm also willing to bet you haven't read the judges written decisions on either case. Bail has to do with a) likelihood to skip bail and b) the resources to do so. The first guy didn't have them and the second (Assange) apparently did.

i have to agree with ahtman on this. While I find the case spurious and Assange's incarceration suspicious in the extreme the very man prides himself on his ability to disappear. Of itself refusing bail is not a questionable decision, its just a little too convenient an opportunity for people to persuade Assange that it is in his best long term interests to cough up the codes.

Wolfstan wrote:
Julian Assange, locked up, no bail as he can't be trusted to flee, based on accusations that were originally dropped.

The accusations have never been dropped.

Get your facts straight before making conspiracy theories.

The originally filed charges and the request for immediate extradition for it were dismissed, due to a lack of evidence.

That's not the same thing as "accusations that were originally dropped".

The United States' government is going to silence Julian Assange because he has documents that show that they were behind 9/11 as well as the details of the HAARP project.

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.

As a citizen of the US I'd like to say that its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations. Even when we disagree strongly with those territories/nations. I find it really bizarre that someone from another country would accept it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

The United States' government is going to silence Julian Assange because he has documents that show that they were behind 9/11 as well as the details of the HAARP project.

Oh no girlfriend, you didn't just go there!



nothatidisagree100%withtheideabutc'mon

Peter Wiggin wrote:As a citizen of the US I'd like to say that its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations. Even when we disagree strongly with those territories/nations. I find it really bizarre that someone from another country would accept it.

Almost every nation has some sort of arrangements with other nations and there is a name for these: extradition treaty. Not all are the same and somet don't have them with everyone but that is how governments work with each other when it comes to law enforcement. It isn't just the United States.

Now if you are talking about covert operations, you still aren't talking about the just the US. You seem to be, like Wikileaks, to narrowly focused on the United States. I would be more worried about multi-nationals when it comes to extralegal solutions to problems. Did you ever see Michael Clayton?

Monster Rain wrote:

The United States' government is going to silence Julian Assange because he has documents that show that they were behind 9/11 as well as the details of the HAARP project.

Oh HAARP.

The rallying cry of tinfoil hatters everywhere!

Ahtman wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:As a citizen of the US I'd like to say that its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations. Even when we disagree strongly with those territories/nations. I find it really bizarre that someone from another country would accept it.

Almost every nation has some sort of arrangements with other nations and there is a name for these: extradition treaty. Not all are the same and somet don't have them with everyone but that is how governments work with each other when it comes to law enforcement. It isn't just the United States.

The point was "its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations", extradition treaties are for when you break a law inside of a country and then goto a different country, they do not apply when something that would be a crime in one country is committed in the other

Gibbsey wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:As a citizen of the US I'd like to say that its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations. Even when we disagree strongly with those territories/nations. I find it really bizarre that someone from another country would accept it.

Almost every nation has some sort of arrangements with other nations and there is a name for these: extradition treaty. Not all are the same and somet don't have them with everyone but that is how governments work with each other when it comes to law enforcement. It isn't just the United States.

The point was "its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations", extradition treaties are for when you break a law inside of a country and then go to a different country, they do not apply when something that would be a crime in one country is committed in the other

Bzzt. Wrong.

Extradition is commonly used for that purpose, yes.

But there's also cases like the mentally ill British hacker who hacked into the Pentagon network looking for UFO files.

He was never in the US. He committed a crime against the US, however, and was extradited to face punishment there.

TL;DR version
You're wrong, and stop talking.

No, he's actually correct. Extradition is used only in cases where crime is committed in the nation whose laws are violated.

Thing is, crime location where internet offenses are considered is generally determined by the location of the servers from which data was taken or, in the case of fraud, the location of the person who was defrauded.

That's why the WikiLeaks thing is complicated. They don't have servers in the United States, and they aren't themselves responsible for removing the information from US servers.

Explain how he's correct, at all.

Because it looks pretty fething wrong to me.

They didn't have to "remove the information from US servers". They encouraged the theft of said information, albeit without saying "STEAL THIS FOR US", simply by saying "If you submit information to us, it doesn't matter how it's obtained."

Kanluwen wrote:Explain how he's correct, at all.

Because it looks pretty fething wrong to me.

I already explained it, and based on what you've written below you understood my explanation, but I'll restate my explanation anyway.

In order to be extradited to the US, per the majority of treaties, you must first commit a crime in the US. The location of information crime is almost always considered to be the place from which information was taken. Thus, if you take information from US servers by accessing the internet from another country, you have still committed a crime within US borders.

So, he was generally correct. He was only wrong about what would be considered the location of the crime.

Kanluwen wrote:
They didn't have to "remove the information from US servers". They encouraged the theft of said information, albeit without saying "STEAL THIS FOR US", simply by saying "If you submit information to us, it doesn't matter how it's obtained."

That's not incitement to theft. More to the point, it doesn't matter, because it isn't illegal to incite people to steal something. If you're thinking of something along the lines of accessory to espionage, then you still don't have a great case, as you would have to prove that WikiLeaks had specific knowledge of a specific crime to be committed; not just that they had general knowledge of general crimes to be committed, everyone has that knowledge.

Misprision would apply if WikiLeaks were based in the United States, but since they aren't, it has no bearing.

Ahtman wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:As a citizen of the US I'd like to say that its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations. Even when we disagree strongly with those territories/nations. I find it really bizarre that someone from another country would accept it.

Almost every nation has some sort of arrangements with other nations and there is a name for these: extradition treaty. Not all are the same and somet don't have them with everyone but that is how governments work with each other when it comes to law enforcement. It isn't just the United States.

Now if you are talking about covert operations, you still aren't talking about the just the US. You seem to be, like Wikileaks, to narrowly focused on the United States. I would be more worried about multi-nationals when it comes to extralegal solutions to problems. Did you ever see Michael Clayton?

Extradition is one thing, the calls for him to be tried under US law just because we ask for it are the ludicrous things. If he's convicted legally through an unbiased international court system then all is well and feth him in the butt with a shiv.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Explain how he's correct, at all.

Because it looks pretty fething wrong to me.

They didn't have to "remove the information from US servers". They encouraged the theft of said information, albeit without saying "STEAL THIS FOR US", simply by saying "If you submit information to us, it doesn't matter how it's obtained."

Two very different things.

idiot! There is a reason the US invented redacting tape! Why would you reveal secret US documents to the world. I hope the US gets a hold of him, drops him off at a black site, and goes to look at butterflies whilst the CIA "dose its thing". I am tired of things that threaten the safety of the US and her citizens being reviled to the world. Hope he never sees the light of day.

Happygrunt wrote: idiot! There is a reason the US invented redacting tape! Why would you reveal secret US documents to the world. I hope the US gets a hold of him, drops him off at a black site, and goes to look at butterflies whilst the CIA "dose its thing". I am tired of things that threaten the safety of the US and her citizens being reviled to the world. Hope he never sees the light of day.

Issues you have.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Happygrunt wrote: idiot! There is a reason the US invented redacting tape! Why would you reveal secret US documents to the world. I hope the US gets a hold of him, drops him off at a black site, and goes to look at butterflies whilst the CIA "dose its thing". I am tired of things that threaten the safety of the US and her citizens being reviled to the world. Hope he never sees the light of day.

Issues you have.

+ piccie

Nice reply, for some reason I found that genuinely funny.

Orlanth wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Happygrunt wrote: idiot! There is a reason the US invented redacting tape! Why would you reveal secret US documents to the world. I hope the US gets a hold of him, drops him off at a black site, and goes to look at butterflies whilst the CIA "dose its thing". I am tired of things that threaten the safety of the US and her citizens being reviled to the world. Hope he never sees the light of day.

Issues you have.

+ piccie

Nice reply, for some reason I found that genuinely funny.

Alright, even I laughed. Good Job Emperors Faithful.

Kanluwen wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:As a citizen of the US I'd like to say that its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations. Even when we disagree strongly with those territories/nations. I find it really bizarre that someone from another country would accept it.

Almost every nation has some sort of arrangements with other nations and there is a name for these: extradition treaty. Not all are the same and somet don't have them with everyone but that is how governments work with each other when it comes to law enforcement. It isn't just the United States.

The point was "its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations", extradition treaties are for when you break a law inside of a country and then go to a different country, they do not apply when something that would be a crime in one country is committed in the other

Bzzt. Wrong.

Extradition is commonly used for that purpose, yes.

But there's also cases like the mentally ill British hacker who hacked into the Pentagon network looking for UFO files.

He was never in the US. He committed a crime against the US, however, and was extradited to face punishment there.

TL;DR version
You're wrong, and stop talking.

Unauthorised computer access is a crime in the UK as well as the USA. It has been arranged by treaty that those kind of cross-border crimes can be subject to extradition. There is no automatic right of extradition. Extradition is a mutual arrangement between two countries, arranged by treaty. Without a treaty, there is no right for country A to pursue criminals in country B. This is why British criminals used to run off to Spain or Brazil.

That particular hacker has not yet been extradicted BTW.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
They didn't have to "remove the information from US servers". They encouraged the theft of said information, albeit without saying "STEAL THIS FOR US", simply by saying "If you submit information to us, it doesn't matter how it's obtained."

That's not incitement to theft. More to the point, it doesn't matter, because it isn't illegal to incite people to steal something. If you're thinking of something along the lines of accessory to espionage, then you still don't have a great case, as you would have to prove that WikiLeaks had specific knowledge of a specific crime to be committed; not just that they had general knowledge of general crimes to be committed, everyone has that knowledge.

Misprision would apply if WikiLeaks were based in the United States, but since they aren't, it has no bearing.

I didn't say it's incitement of theft.

It's the same situation as a pawn shop that knowingly buys stolen goods.

They're not saying "Hey do this!". They're saying "Well, if you do this...we'll pretend it didn't happen and give you the rewards anyways."

It's not the same situation.

Sure it is.

WikiLeaks accepts material without wanting to know how it's acquired. All they do is verify that the material is actually reliable.

Happygrunt wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Happygrunt wrote: idiot! There is a reason the US invented redacting tape! Why would you reveal secret US documents to the world. I hope the US gets a hold of him, drops him off at a black site, and goes to look at butterflies whilst the CIA "dose its thing". I am tired of things that threaten the safety of the US and her citizens being reviled to the world. Hope he never sees the light of day.

Issues you have.

+ piccie

Nice reply, for some reason I found that genuinely funny.

Alright, even I laughed. Good Job Emperors Faithful.

MAXIMUM SMUG LEVELS!




Good to see you didn't take it the wrong way.

Kanluwen wrote:They're not saying "Hey do this!". They're saying "Well, if you do this...we'll pretend it didn't happen and give you the rewards anyways."

Wait, why are we talking about the CIA again?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:They're not saying "Hey do this!". They're saying "Well, if you do this...we'll pretend it didn't happen and give you the rewards anyways."

Wait, why are we talking about the CIA again?

Your smartassery fails again.

Kanluwen wrote:
I didn't say it's incitement of theft.

It's the same situation as a pawn shop that knowingly buys stolen goods.

They're not saying "Hey do this!". They're saying "Well, if you do this...we'll pretend it didn't happen and give you the rewards anyways."

That's only the same thing is you assume a common jurisdiction, which in the WikiLeaks case cannot be done. In the pawn shop example you're assuming that the theft, and successive exchange, both occurred in the same country.

In this case the initial theft occurred in the US, but the successive exchange did not, not by necessity anyway. Therefore US law doesn't apply, unless the exchange is found to have occurred in the US.

Kanluwen wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:They're not saying "Hey do this!". They're saying "Well, if you do this...we'll pretend it didn't happen and give you the rewards anyways."

Wait, why are we talking about the CIA again?

Your smartassery fails again.

Aww, c'mon Kanny. Give us a hug.

Gibbsey wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

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.

As a citizen of the US I'd like to say that its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations. Even when we disagree strongly with those territories/nations. I find it really bizarre that someone from another country would accept it.

Almost every nation has some sort of arrangements with other nations and there is a name for these: extradition treaty. Not all are the same and somet don't have them with everyone but that is how governments work with each other when it comes to law enforcement. It isn't just the United States.

The point was "its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations", extradition treaties are for when you break a law inside of a country and then go to a different country, they do not apply when something that would be a crime in one country is committed in the other

The internet is blurring lines of nationality, a crime against one nation can be directly committed in another. This predates the internet actually where conspiracy is involved. A government can request extradition of a conspirator against itself even if the conspirator is not a citizen of that country and has never visited it.

Getting a foreign government to accept an extradition request is by no means a given, and many factors play out in addition to the justification of the extradition warrant.

Kanluwen wrote:
Bzzt. Wrong.

Extradition is commonly used for that purpose, yes.

But there's also cases like the mentally ill British hacker who hacked into the Pentagon network looking for UFO files.

He was never in the US. He committed a crime against the US, however, and was extradited to face punishment there.

TL;DR version
You're wrong, and stop talking.

You are talking about Gary Mckinnon, and he is in fact still here. The McKinnon case is a good example because there is no doubt Mckinnon committed the offences with which he is charged, he confessed as such, and the UK does have an extradition treaty with the US. However it is very unlikely McKinnon will be extradited, the reason is because Mckinnons main 'crime' was severely embarassing the DoD, not for hacking, and the charges against him have been blatantly exaggerated in order to throw the book at him. This plus the political factor that Brown was caving in to the US demands on pretty much anything, plus the factor than McKinnon is mentally ill, and the fact that he is harmless means that he is unlikely to see a US courtroom. I completely concur with the decision not to extradite him.
Part of the problem also lies with the fact that the extradition treaty with the US is rather one sided, and we have memories of how genuine terrorists were succoured by the US courts on spurious human rights grounds. Getting an IRA member extradited with a Boston jury involved is going to be very difficult at the best of times. If you wont send us murderers why should we send you hackers.

It didn't help that the current scare is a threat of up to 70 years imprisonment for McKinnon. This figure is due to the 'severity' of the crime, a severity that comes entirely from the legal requirement to minimise petty extradition cases, at least one single instance of damage must amount to $5000 or more to meet threshold for extradition. McKinnon didn't damage any computers, he just looked for UFO's and left rude messages, so the $5000 damages were inflated pseudo-costs, which then had to be multiplied by the number of computers effected (a rather large number) to stand up to logical scrutiny.

Compound this with the case of an Israeli hacker contemporary to McKinnon who Israel point blank refused to extradite. The US government immediately let the matter drop.

Thus the case became a hot potato, the Brown government wanted to extradite but found that it would be a PR and legal disaster to do so, even though McKinnon lost his own UK and EU appeals. The Con/Dems knew better than to even consider complying with US demands for extradition. The case will be left in legal limbo to rot.

The EU appeals also caused a stir. The EU Court of Human Rights courts refused McKinnons appeal request (yes technically the extradition can go ahead anytime the Home Secretary decides). The same week a particular vile Islamic cleric charged with inciting terrorist activities had an appeal against extradition to the US from the UK accepted by the same court. This pissed rather a lot of us off frankly, we dont want this fether as much as we do want to spare delicate and harmless McKinnon from 70 years in an orange jumpsuit.

Incidently the Wikileaks documents covers this issue, there was a secret meeting between Gordon Brown and the US ambassador in which Gordon Brown offered a trial and (potential) sentencing in the UK. a good example of how a proxy court works. Charging someone on sometone elses laws. I don't know if that would have been acceptable to Bush/Obama?, I dont care Brown was a jellyfish anyway, he should have told the US ambassador where to stick the warrant. This whole thing is a misdemeanor at worst grossly inflated to massage the egos of the DoD who frankly shouldn't leave their systems open to unskilled amateur hackers like McKinnon. Frankly he did them a favour.