Slashdot Mirror
Extradition of Warez Suspect Blocked
An anonymous reader writes "Following up on an earlier Slashdot story, the extradition of alleged DrinkorDie leader Hew Raymond Griffiths has been denied. The judge in the case ruled that Griffiths, an Australian who had never set foot in the United States, had committed the alleged actions in Australia and had never fled from an extradition country. Therefore, the US hadn't made its case. Griffiths' attorney points out that he should have faced trial in Australia if anywhere, but .au authorities never charged him, which upset the DOJ and led to the extradition attempt. More info can also be found. The US (represented by Australian prosecutors) have fifteen days to appeal. One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried a similar approach."
There was a story on /. just recently where the USA was attempting to add DMCA-like clauses in order for a trade agreement to go ahead... Don't get me wrong here - there's nothing wrong with a country trying to get as much as it can from any international deal, it's just that I loath the DMCA and its kin...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried a similar approach.
Then "one" hasn't read enough on the subject.
When asked about possibly extraditing Neo Nazi webmasters to Germany where it's illegal to do things like...Deny the Holocaust or glorify Hitler; John Russell, a U.S. justice department spokesman said "In order to have extradition, you have to have dual criminality in both countries, and this doesn't meet that standard,"
Google for "Fred Leuchter german extradition" and you'll get a few links.
The US Government wouldn't do it, so how can they expect Australia to?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
i don't know how they would react if italy tried to ask the extradiction of an U.S. cracker, but i can tell you this: on February 3rd 1998, a low-flying U.S. Marine surveillance jet on a "ramboing" flight accidentally (?) cut a ski-lift cable-car line in Cavalese (italy), causing all 20 people aboard to fall some 260 ft to their deaths. The american pilots were kept safe and protected into the base by their chiefs, brought back to U.S., and declared not-guilty by an american military court. for what i know they still fly. They never appeared in front of an italian court.
Reminds me of the Helms-Burton Act where non-US citizens (like European or Canadian company CEO's) can be charged in the US for trading with Cuba.
a.k.a 'The Hague Invasion Act'
Net sa best, mar it koe minder
Yeah, that was relevant.
The first one is a agreement between US and Thailand on extraditions. It says noting about actual people being extradicted one way or the other. I'd assume that the US intend to get some people extradicted from Thailand while refusing all requests Thailand has (if they want to).
The second is stripping a former Nazi guard from Treblinka (a concentration camp) of his US citizenship since he wasn't truthful about his history on his application. The final case is about the US wanting to extradite people from France.
So, none has any relevance to the topic at hand. The australian is born in australia and has never been in the US. The most relevant case in your examples is a Nazi war criminal (and apparently an infamously brutal one).
It's very clear that in international conventions about extraditions, countries are allowed to deny any extradition request for its own nationals. Actually, I don't know any country who does !
...
eg:
European Convention on Extradition
Paris, 13.XII.1957
Article 6 - Extradition of nationals
A Contracting Party shall have the right to refuse extradition of its nationals.
Each Contracting Party may, by a declaration made at the time of signature or of deposit of its instrument of ratification or accession, define as far as it is concerned the term "nationals" within the meaning of this Convention.
Nationality shall be determined as at the time of the decision concerning extradition. If, however, the person claimed is first recognised as a national of the requested Party during the period between the time of the decision and the time contemplated for the surrender, the requested Party may avail itself of the provision contained in sub-paragraph a of this article.
If the requested Party does not extradite its national, it shall at the request of the requesting Party submit the case to its competent authorities in order that proceedings may be taken if they are considered appropriate. For this purpose, the files, information and exhibits relating to the offence shall be transmitted without charge by the means provided for in Article 12, paragraph 1. The requesting Party shall be informed of the result of its request.
I found what I think you are referring to using a google search for:
Madonna "Michael Jackson" torchbearers terrorists
Fucking asswipes made a deal with UK to allow them to extradite pretty much anyone they want without even going through a judge here! I don't know which government i hate more, the US for being such assholes, or my own government following them like a little puppy. Im not even going to start about camp X-ray.
extract from statewatch
On 31 March, David Blunkett, UK Home Secretary, signed an Extradition Treaty on behalf of the UK with his United States counterpart, Attorney General Tom Ashcroft, ostensibly bringing the US into line with procedures between European countries. The UK parliament was not consulted at all and the text was not public available until the end of May. The only justification given for the delay was "administrative reasons", though these did not hold-up scrutiny by the US senate, which began almost immediately.
The UK-US Treaty has three main effects:
- (1) it removes the requirement on the US to provide prima facie evidence when requesting the extradition of people from the UK but maintains the requirement on the UK to satisfy the "probable cause" requirement in the US when seeking the extradition of US nationals;
- (2) it removes or restricts key protections currently open to suspects and defendants;
- (3) it implements the EU-US Treaty on extradition, signed in Washington on 25 June 2003, but far exceeds the provisions in this agreement.
Ofcourse it works the otherway around but i dont think we would have a chance in hell of extraditing an American - the treaty is very unfairly balanced.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Native Australians never refer to the country as "Aussie" - it is, however, quite common for our neighbours across the ditch (ie., New Zealanders) to use the term "Aussie" instead of "Australia".
You may have to get used to more NZ-isms as the CER (Closer Economic Relations) grows into a full-blown common market (currently predicted to happen within the next five years); at that point you will hear more references to "Aussie" (such as "the Aussie" when referring to the Australian dollar), particularly as it sounds like NZ are considering adopting a common currency (ie., ours).
Both the civil *and* US military investigation found the pilot guilty of misconduct (should not have been doing low altitude manouvres in that area....it was a busy ski resort and it appears that he was just going for a joyride...showing off) but the pilot got off with a 1 year sospension, never came to court in Italy (which under Italian law he should do), and the families of the victims had to accept a blanket payoff.
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
It has?? You're a democracy!
Bull-hockey. Real choice was removed from the system a long time ago.
You make a big bloody noise about democracy.
Right, because God forbid us plebians ever fully grasp how disenfranchised we all are, there might be a real problem instead of just some idiot (me)whining on Slashdot.
The flip side is that you must all take responsibility for the leaders you elect. Sorry but it really is your fault.
Right. I'm responsible for the fact that my nation is filled with the willfully ignorant? Explain how - and please use small words, as ignorance is communicable. We've let the fulfillment of our base human hedonism drown out what little outrage we have the stomach for, and what's worse we expect corruption of the worst sort at every level.
If your government really has been overthrown by non-democratic means doesn't your constitution oblige you to rise up and use those guns you insist on having?
Yes, and that reason is precisely why guns are enshrined in the Constitution. Our Constitution was written by revolutionaries - and they knew that their efforts might, in a very short period of time, lead to a system even more egregiously fucked up than one we have now - much like there is an intentional balance of powers between our branches of government (which Congress is trying to legislate away), there is also a balance of power between our government and its constituents.
apparently no-one can read.
this is about the third time someone's mistaken the order of this sentence.
read it as "One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried [to extradite a US citizen from USA using ]a similar approach."
ashridah
Attorney Humlen, lecturer in international law at the university of Oslo, has a lot of strange, sometimes funny anecdotes about international events. As I recall, he recounted the nicaragua harbor-mining incident more or less like this:
Nicaragua's head of state said something unflattering about Reagan in a public speech. Reagan, perhaps as a result of the onset of senile dementia, thought that mining the harbors of Nicaragua was a reasonable response.
This of course provoked incredulous responses from the rest of the world, and the court in question did rule the action illegal. However, since US support for the court was essential to its success, they made the penalty as light as they possibly could: just pay for the cleanup, please.
Unfortunately, that wasn't light enough for the US government, and they have since boycotted the international court in question.
(errors in this anecdote are probably due to me, not attorney Humlen)
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
the pilot was aquited Check YOUR facts before you assume the US doesn't have its head firmly up its own arse
Check your facts yourself. He was tried in a US military court, and aquitted.
By some NATO treaty (and as ruled by an italian court), he actually is under US jurisdiction, not Italian.
There are 010 kinds of people. Those who understand octal, those who don't, and 06 other kinds of morons.
although he was found guilty at a second trial because he and his co-pilot destroyed a tape made during the flight, not for the actual deaths they caused!
I live in New Zealand and we refer to Aussie as a country all the time. In fact I went to Aussie in November for a friends wedding.
But perhaps we get special rights after those cheating aussie bastard bowled underarm against us in cricket. wikipedia
Mr. President, there are more than 500 young American service men and servicewomen who fought and died in Iraq who won't ever be able to laugh at any jokes again. They went to Iraq because they believed your word about the WMDs, Mr. President.
I have no dispute with the rest of your post, but I just have to correct this. The American soldiers in Iraq didn't go there because they believed the President. They went there, because they're in the military, and in the military you follow orders that your commander gives you. First, because you are bound by your duty and honor as a soldier to do so, and second because they put you in jail if you don't. It has nothing to do with belief.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
>Which thousands? The hundreds of thousands under Saddam, or the thousands while we were removing him?
How about the whole lot of them; the hundreds of thousands who died at the behest of a cruel dictator, put there and materially supported by the West and the thousands killed whilst removing the man they aided and abetted?
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
No, it has many. Here is a list of bilateral extradition treaties as of 2002.
Or rather, the hundreds of thousands who died after we helped Saddam gain power, or the thousands while we were removing him?
Well, let's take the easy way out and say both.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
I'd start with Article 2, sentences 3 and 4, of the Charter of the United Nations (the exception of Article 51 clearly does not apply).
You know the UN? That little organization established on initiative of the US, with rules largely dictated by the US?