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."
Getting the criminals OUT of Aussie...
:)
Damn it we tried very hard to get them all in there
Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried a similar approach. Invade it? Ofcourse only if said country sits on shitloads of oil.
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.
The US wouldn't accept it.
The U.S. steadfastly refuses to play by its own rules, much less anyone else's.woof.
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
To answer your question: One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried a similar approach.
In July 1998 in Rome, 120 Member States of the United Nations adopted a treaty to establish - for the first time in the history of the world - a permanent international criminal court. [source UN].
And this is what the US had to say about it: "This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."[source UN]
Thus the US has no intention of ever handing over any of its citizens to even an internationa court. However, the US department of justice (ha ha) has the audacity to try to extradite an Australian national under extra vires conditions.
The US thinks it is the world policeman. But it is not willing to police itself. I am glad Australia finally stood up to the global bully. I hope Australians vote Howard out at the next elections and follow the example set by the brave people of Spain.
Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny
Nothing to see here
One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried to invade it because it
stockpiles weapons of mass destruction.
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.
Before he stomped off, he asked "Is it going to be like this everywhere I go around here?!?"
One can only hope he gave up vacationing anywhere more exotic than Niagara Falls.
Powered by Web3.5 RC 2
a.k.a 'The Hague Invasion Act'
Net sa best, mar it koe minder
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.
Well, consider that the US actually made invasion plans of the Netherlands to "liberate" Americans held captive for trial by the international court in The Hague.
One could therefore argue that the US wouldn't be playing by the usual rules when an extradition request is made...
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.
I know of a hotel owner (owner, resort and country shall remain unnamed) with a reputation of being a prankster, that used to ask his American guests when leaving whether they had a stamp of the resort in their passports. Most of his guests answered with the innocent/naive "No, we didn't get one when we passed customs." Whereupon he kindly offered and actually succeeded in providing one. After a couple of months he received an official letter from the US embassy where he was asked to stop his actions otherwise they'd send in the US navy. What better statement of your whit would you like?
Please I'd like to be modded down as insulting to the US of A.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)