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."
I'm not a fan of piracy, but if Australia felt like going easy on him, that's his concern. he never broke a law in the united states. is someone going to arrest me for a law I broke in Ukraine?
this could have set a dangerous precedent. considering how foreigners rights can be trampled due to the PATRIOT act, I'm glad we can't add unlawful and/or unwilling extradition to the list of powers we hold over non-citizens.
the decision is a strong message to the United States Department of Justice that it will not be allowed to hijack the laws of a sovereign nation merely because it is dissatisfied with said country's laws
Here here! Even if our laws do need adjusting, I'd hate to think that American laws applied applied on my home turf - or any other countries for that matter.
Still, piracy is bad, and it hurts my pocket, so I hope that he can be prosecuted in Australia still.
... but finally my country shows some spine. He should be prosecuted in Australia, under Australian law. If the department of public prosecutions has seen fit not to charge him, then it either means that a) they don't think there's a case, or b) they're out chasing murderers like they should be.
No offence intended to my American colleagues, but please respect everyone else's borders!
-- Your mother uses Emacs.
I've seen this several times now - someone referring to Australia as 'Aussie'.
What the fuck? An Aussie would be an Australian, not the fucking country.
Can America be referred to as Yankee? Can Britan be referred to as Brit? No for fuck's sake!
> One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried a similar approach.
They will react by making an appeal by the means of court. What poster of this article is expecting them to do ? Cover-bomb Australia or what ?
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
The US wouldn't accept it.
The U.S. steadfastly refuses to play by its own rules, much less anyone else's.woof.
News flash - Australia is NOT part of the US. It is a foreign nation!
Foreign to whom?
Sorry to pick nits here, but Australia is a sovereign nation, in that it has it's own laws and constitution and such. You know, things that frustrate the current US administration in thier attempts to bring "freedom" to the rest of the world.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Local authorities failed to deal with the problem, which is bad. But the extradition attempt are a perfect example of they way to go if America wants everyone to hate them. The big bully strikes again.
Personally if I lived there and he were shipped to the US, US would lose another star in my book as well as my local goverment for kissing their ass.
I don't hate America, but when they try to do the "hey look, we are the greatest country in the world, everybody follow us" stunt, I'd like to be able to shut them up.
Guess what, I think that MY country is the greatest in the world, but you can come in as number two.
``One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried a similar approach.''
I find it scary enough what the US has done in cases like this one:
If it's just one criminal, just anger. If it happens more often, economic sanctions or cutting of diplomatic ties. If the criminal has been labeled a terrorist (hmm, could this dude be a cyberterrorist?), war.
That's the reaction against the country itself. As to the alledged criminal, they could invite them to the US and arrest them there. Or they could send some intelligence agents to kidnap them.
I believe these things have happened in the past. Sklyarov was invited to the US and arrested. Afghanistan didn't (refused or couldn't) deliver Bin Laden and was conquered. As for kidnapping, I seem to recall some incident in Africa...was it Kenia? I don't know, but I think there have been cases.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried to invade it because it
stockpiles weapons of mass destruction.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How the fuck is John Howard (Australian Prime Minister) getting any credit for this? This was a court decision ... from a judge. Please don't give any credit to Mr Coward, we all know he would have bent over to the US in a hearbeat. Sheesh.
That's because we don't need to. The U.S. is perfectly capable of
When I was a kid, I used to mock my leftist acquaintances (hi Anne!) for their devotion to the Soviet Union despite the Soviet Union's abysmal record on human rights and liberties as detailed, among many other places, in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago . While I also derided Joe McCarthy and his ilk, little did I guess that a Republican administration would start off the twenty-first century with a scramble to enact laws as threatening to liberty as the Soviets'.
Under current American law, you can actually get ten years in Federal prison -- for editing a book written in country under U.S. embargo. That's right: editing a book written by a Iranian or a Cuba or a Syrian or a North Korean -- or even adding illustrations to such a book -- is now a criminal offense in this the "land of the free and home of the brave".
And to and insult to injury, the same administration that is trampling our traditional liberties
How about protecting the Bill of Rights and the Twin Towers first, and worry about denying gays their pursuit of happiness as part of a cheap political appeal to your Fundamentalist base after you've explained where those WMDs got to?
Oh, I nearly forgot: on Wednesday, President Bush used the occasion of a media dinner to joke about not finding the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that were his excuse for going to war.
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. And to you safely back in Washington, it's all a joke, Mr. President.
This administration may be laughable, but it's not funny anymore.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried a similar approach.
Not in the least. The US vehemently opposed the International Crime Court, and when it became clear that the court was becoming reality, the US fought to have citizens of the United States immune to prosecution there.
So one need not wonder at all, a quick peek behind the shoulder reveals how the US government reacts to matters such as these when applied to them.
2) The US DOJ decided that he must therefore be extradited for prosecution in the US.
This does not exclude that if a US citizen/company feels they have been nobbled by an australian they can none the less pursue thier case in the Australian courts and seek damages. Obviously they canot seek criminal charges on the basis of US laws.
Do US citizens understand what Democracy actually means? As far as I can see many US citizens seem to think that Democracy means you agree with them.
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
The US responds very negatively to this. Infact I believe they will not ratify the International Criminal Court for this very reason. People like Henry Kissinger would end up in the Hague with Milosovich if it did:
t ic le_41.asp
http://www.globalcomment.com/current_affairs/ar
As usual double standards....
This is awesome... It's about time someone gets a head on their shoulders. When the US can prosecute foreign nationals for doing something in a foreign country, that's the end of it... Say someone spits on the sidewalk in New Delhi? Well, it seems the US should have that person extradited to the US because it's against the law to spit on the sidewalk in the US.
It is ridiculous for the US to think that it can extend its laws beyond its sovreign boundaries and apply them in OTHER sovreign states, to people who are neither IN the US or citizens thereof. It is clearly against just about every international law and treaty on the books (with a few notable exceptions, *cough* UK *cough*).
When in Rome... right? I give the US about 10 years before the rest of the world gets sick of our shit and blows us off the face of the Earth with a massive trade war.. our economy is our most vulnerable weakness...
One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried a similar approach.
Really? Isn't it trivially predictable how the US would have reacted?
For all intents and purposes, the US behaves like the alpha male in a pack - namely as if the rules would not apply to them, only to others.
Incidently, that is exactly what is usually meant when we say someone is arrogant.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Bush is a horrible example of a politician and statesman. He has crass timing and shows no respect to issues that demand the deepest respect.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it agreed between the parties to not use 9/11 as a political springboard during re-election? What footage features prominently in GWB's ads? Exactly. He's about the US when it suits him, and about himself all other times. He'll never go out on a limb to help the US, unless there's a lucrative deal involved. He's the epitome of the professional politician - the self-interested, self-serving greedy individual.
The question is, were the orders to attack Iraq and Afghanistan lawful? We'll see.
Don't forget the thousands of civilians who died in Iraq.
Which thousands? The hundreds of thousands under Saddam, or the thousands while we were removing him?
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Very true, and there are also thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who were killed because of the invasion/occupation, each equally as important and deserving of life as the American soldiers. Common sense tells me that such injustice can only further enrage the proponents of terrorism. No doubt I will get flamed for this -- it's not considered "patriotic" to express concern for "collateral damage".
Just wanted to point that out, otherwise I fully agree with your post.
Problem is, not everyone tortured, raped, and killed by Saddam's regime was "out to depose him". People who committed the crime of being related to those trying to despose Saddam were also tortured or killed. Women were kidnapped in the streets and raped by gangs working for Saddam's sons.
We may not have been over there for the best reasons, but it's a damn sight better over there now that Saddam's no longer in power and his sons are roasting in Hell.
Bush may be a complete fuck-up as a Commander in Chief, but the U.S. Armed Forces did, and are doing, a hell of a lot of good over there.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.