Warez Suspect To Be Extradited, After All

usefool writes "After the U.S.'s first extradition request against an Australian man was denied, the U.S. appealed that decision and has now won the right to try Hew Raymond Griffiths in the U.S."

Comments

Hello NWO

[Izago909]

Does everyone remember the large protests over the last couple decades against what people perceived as the formation of a one world government? They are usually based in the U.S. and targeted at the WTO, World Bank, and U.N. I guess the Christian bible has a couple verses people interpret to mean "no one world government". Who would have thought it would be the U.S. that became the world government? I say all of us should go out tomorrow and protest our government. Also, before I get a whole bunch of conservatives calling me a troll and arguing that patriotism is defined as agreeing with the government, Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.

Re:Hello NWO

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would have thought it would be the U.S. that became the world government?

Erm, probably just about everyone *outside* the U.S?

Re:Hello NWO

[Veridium]

Why should someone who commits crimes against someone in another country not be held liable for those crimes simply because of geographic boundaires?

I'm not going to touch the definition of crime bit with regards to warez, but I think if you commit a crime, you should be tried by the laws of the country you were in at the time you commited it.

Re:Hello NWO

[stubear]

Where did the crime occur though? He was moving bits around and some of these bits were moved within the US, not just within Austrailia. Drug kingpins in Columbia found themselves being hunted by the US military and Law Enforcement even though they never stepped foot in the US, they merely ran criminal organizations which sold drugs within US borders. This is a very similar type of crime and he should be happy we didn't send in Delta like we did for Pablo Escobar.

Re:Hello NWO

[myowntrueself]

"Why should someone who commits crimes against someone in another country not be held liable for those crimes simply because of geographic boundaires?"

Sure. So an Brit who offends Robert Mugabe, apparently an offence in Zimbabwe, should be extradited to stand trial in Harare.

Right.

Under the UN charter, a person cannot be tried for an act which was not illegal at the time and place it was committed.

But then we are talking about the USA (in the article) and we all know how important respect for UN conventions and international treaties are for America...

Re:Hello NWO

[Veridium]

Where did the crime occur though?

This really isn't as tricky as lawyers make it out to be. In fact, it's because of BSing lawyers that this is even complex. Who comittted the crime? The person, or the bits? Now, where was the person when he comitted the crime?

Yeah, I know fscking lawyers and politicians will argue otherwise, but really, this is truly the most logical way of looking at it.

Re:Hello NWO

[mlyle]

By this logic, arguably the US wouldn't be able to try Osama Bin Laden if he was captured, despite the fact that he allegedly facilitated and conspired in the murder of 3000 people in the US. And the country whose laws he was under at the time wasn't particularly interested in trying him either.

Likewise, if someone committed bank fraud from Australia against the US, it would hardly be the Australian authorities investigating it, nor would anyone in Australia be damaged-- so it wouldn't exactly be very interesting to Australian prosecutors. Hence we have extradition treaties for this type of thing.

I agree being extradited for being a indiscriminate warez kiddie is a bit extreme.

Re:Hello NWO

[Loadmaster]

Sure. So an Brit who offends Robert Mugabe, apparently an offence in Zimbabwe, should be extradited to stand trial in Harare.

Mugabe can try, but Britain would never allow it. Just like France refuses to extradite the Unicorn Killer. In this case, the U.S. asked Australia to extradite him. They complied. An Australian court said send him to America. Seems like the U.S. respected their laws pretty well.

Re:Hello NWO

[mefus]

Um, because a non-profit warez outfit isn't a crime by traditional definitions? Because comparing warez d00dz to 9/11 is laughably absurd?

That logic?

Re:Hello NWO

[mlyle]

Well, Australia's government has chosen to enter into a reciprocal extradition agreement with the US; they would expect a US citizen to be extradited to Australia if the circumstances were reversed.

In most cases, the place where victims are located has a lot more incentive and ability to prosecute in most cases. This is why extradition agreements exist. At the same time, extradition agreements are generally purposely limited to 'serious' crimes, to prevent their overuse and miscarriages of justice. Unfortunately, criminal violation of copyright has become a much more broadly appliable statute since information technology has come along, and I think that's where the problem is-- the laws are out of date for the problem.

Think of how difficult it would be for Australia to prosecute an Australian for bank fraud committed against citizens in a foreign country, though-- they would have no power to compel witnesses, to subpoena most of the relevent evidence, etc. Not to mention that most prosecutors would care a lot more about cases where their direct constituents are the victim, rather than foreigners. It would be virtually impossible to prove a case under such circumstances.

Re:Hello NWO

[Gentlewhisper]

"Australia could just as easily extradite US citizens for similar offenses."

You must be kidding. When was the last time an American was extradicted for anything, let alone something like this?

That's right, never. On the other hand, when other countries do it to the US, they will whinge and throw their fists about like some cry baby, until they get their way!

Re:Hello NWO

[steve_bryan]

Has everyone already forgotten the fatwah that was issued for Salman Rushdie for "committing a crime" in one country while residing in another? His crime was writing a book considered impious ("The Satanic Verses") and his sentence was death.

So if US law can be applied world wide why not Islamic law? In the past I thought most US policy makers showed proper caution about allowing too much authority that could supercede national sovereignty. The principle is much more important than the specifics. So it is not bad enough that people who have government granted monopolies are given authority over what technology is allowed, now they are allowed to set precedents that could undermine national sovereignty? What a looming nightmare.

Re:Hello NWO

[antic]

Can I just expand on that sentence of yours:

"In this case, the U.S. (a country of 200+ million people currently exerting its military dominance in 2 other countries) asked Australia (a country of 20 million people and comparably little world impact) to extradite him."

I appreciate your argument, but it's becoming less simple to turn down requests from the US.

Re:Hello NWO

[sosume]

Excuse me, why should a new zealand citizen abide to US law especially if he's never been there? I am dutch and can smoke whatever I want. Does this mean the subpoena's will start showing up at my doorstep?

Is this a new form of colonialism? Do we all 6.3 billion have to abide to the law of a mere 300 million?

Re:Hello NWO

[badasscat]

Don't you think, in the interest of fairness and justice, that Osama should be tried by an international court instead?

And how would an international court, made up of say, France, Libya, China, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Canada and Greece, be necessarily so much more impartial? I am certainly no Bushite, but even I, as a New Yorker who lived through 9/11, would find the idea of an international court to try bin Laden patently offensive. He committed a crime against me, in my territory and I deserve to have him tried in a court that follows my laws. The crime was committed here, and he should be tried here. Victims have rights too, you know, and that's why extradition treaties exist in the first place.

Trying him in the US would be like letting the victim of an alleged crime be the judge of the accused.

No, because he would not be tried for attacking the United States and he would not be judged by the American people - he would be tried for the murder of almost 3,000 people in the United States, and he would be judged by trained and experienced legal professionals just like every other case in this country.

Obviously, as in any other case, the judge would have to have had no personal involvement in the attacks. It's a judge's duty by law to be impartial; now, not all of them are, but I'd trust a US federal judge any day of the week over any international court, which these days would almost necessarily be comprised primarily of countries not friendly to us and in many cases openly sympathetic to bin Laden's cause.

Re:Hello NWO

[pjt33]

I think you probably mean 40-odd years. 60 years ago the British Empire still covered something like a third of the world's land surface: it was in the 1960s that it really broke up.

Re:Hello NWO

[Veridium]

He committed a crime against me, in my territory and I deserve to have him tried in a court that follows my laws.

Well you've already judged him guilty so that's pretty much that.

And how many people judged Saddam Hussein guilty of having WMD?

Obviously, as in any other case, the judge would have to have had no personal involvement in the attacks. It's a judge's duty by law to be impartial

Yeah, I'm sure any given federal US judge is going to be impartial to Bin Laden. We would breed even more hatred if we attempted to try him in this country. It would be better if he was killed in a fight.

over any international court, which these days would almost necessarily be comprised primarily of countries not friendly to us and in many cases openly sympathetic to bin Laden's cause.

None of the countries you named here:
France, Libya, China, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Canada and Greece
are openly sympathetic to bin Laden's cause. The one suspect on the list for me would be Libya, but they have made substantial disavowals of terrorism with real deeds. Do you really think France, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Canada, and Greece are hostile to us? China, maybe.

Re:Hello NWO

[Wudbaer]

But what would the US have done if they had not extradited him ? Being pissed off ? Likely. Invaded ? Hardly. Economic sanctions ? Not really.

Re:Hello NWO

[famebait]

Suddenly, somebody from France extradites you

First, look up "extradite".

Second: Although the recent french initiatives against merely advertising internationally something that would be illegal in France is more than a little suspect, if you actually do ship something to France, then yes you do have the obligation to check that you are not breaking french law by doing so. Just like the US can convict you for shipping heroin to the US from a hypothetical free-heroin country. Of course you have.

Now, if your country has no extradition treaty with France, you can of course choose to ignore any French sanctions against you. Provided you are happy to stay only in countries that have no extradition treaty with france and not hold any assets in France.

Re:Hello NWO

[oddfox]

"It's sad to see everyone jump on the bandwagon and dunp on the French, it just shows up the moronity of the typical ugly American."

Kettle, meet pot. Pot, meet kettle.

Re:Hello NWO

[cozziewozzie]

By this logic, arguably the US wouldn't be able to try Osama Bin Laden if he was captured, despite the fact that he allegedly facilitated and conspired in the murder of 3000 people in the US. And the country whose laws he was under at the time wasn't particularly interested in trying him either.

Some of us feel that Osama should be tried by an international tribunal, just like Milosevic, for his crimes against humanity.

I like his logic. Bits are information. Otherwise, you'd be able to try every writer who has ever written a book, just because someone read this book in a country which doesn't agree with its views. Think Salman Rushdie and 'Satanic Verses'. Should he have been extradited to Iran because of the fatwa and sentenced to death?

Re:Hello NWO

[DNS-and-BIND]

Wait - I thought American military interventions abroad were a BAD thing. Are you saying that something good happened?

Where's the oil in Bosnia?

Re:Hello NWO

[Wudbaer]

Usually it's a tit-for-tat. Bosnia gets protection by US troops, which costs the US shitloads of money and weakens the already stretched resources of the US military. Romania might get something else out for them. Money ? Special status for doing trade ? Large US bases ?

If those nations trade their national sovereignity for bribes by the US it's their loss. But I don't think that they are forced by the US with dark and ominous threats as the grand parent insinuated without having considerable advantages from this.

Re:Hello NWO

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's simplify this. If you stand in Niagara Falls, New York and shoot someone in Niagara Fall, Ontario, where did you commit the murder?

The sensible solution is to allow the trial to occur in the place where the damage is done.

Re:Hello NWO

[Wudbaer]

The amazing thing with those bases is (myself being in Germany in a city that had several large US bases until a couple of years ago) that as long as they were there people kept shouting and spraying "Ami go home". The moment they decided to leave everyone at least in the regions the bases were in and in big politics went "NONONO ! You can't just leave ! What about local economy !"

This is especially bizarre if one considers the quarrels Germany and the US had about Iraq; on one hand people don't want the US to operate from German soil against Iraq or the like, on the other (what's been happening in the last couple of weeks since Mr. Rumsfeld made the big announcement about a major change in the US forces' structure in Europe) it is seen as punishment if the US want to close bases and people are upset. Seemingly having something to eat is more important than lofty ideals. ;-)

Indeed in my city (Ulm/Neu-Ulm in Southern Germany) large areas suddenly were deserted more or less over night when the US troops moved out at the beginning of the 90's, also the real estate market weakened considerably. Luckily as the city was not too bad off financially back then the city put the vacated bases and housing facilities to good use (which took a good part of the last 10 years to happen), but poorer communities or small towns somewhere in the countryside where the US base and their supplyers often are the only larger employer really got into trouble. Seems you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

so let me get this straight....

[John_Allen_Mohammed]

U.S. law now supersedes the written laws of all sovereign nations? Why should I bother voting at all, if the ultimate authority lays in the hands of arrogant foreigners that do not represent me....

Re:so let me get this straight....

[timeOday]

Granted - superficially, it's not the US that's doing something bizarre here, but Australia.

Of course the next question is what sort of pressure the US exerts on Austrialia to get de facto legal jurisdiction there, and whether it's consistent with democratic self-rule Down Under. Somehow I doubt Australia would do the same favor for its less "influential" fellow nations.

Re:so let me get this straight....

[alister]

Of course the next question is what sort of pressure the US exerts on Austrialia to get de facto legal jurisdiction there, and whether it's consistent with democratic self-rule Down Under. Somehow I doubt Australia would do the same favor for its less "influential" fellow nations.

Bugger that. We don't even complain when the US arranges to have our civilians kidnapped and held incommunicado in another foreign country and without trial for three years. Even if they've not committed a crime in that country, or against the US.

We also assist the US in its illegal wars in the (so far) vain hope that we'll score some trade benefits from it.

I'm looking forward to unAmerican thoughts becoming criminalised in the US, so that I can be extradited and tried for this Slashdot post...

Alister

Scary ... to say the least!

[Hektor_Troy]

What next? Will I be extradited for having had sex with a 16-year-old (illegal in the US)? How about drinking alcohol in public, which is illegal in many countries (Saudi Arabia for instance), or hell - buying alcohol at the tender age of 15 (illegal in the US)? How about having had sex before I was 18 (also illegal in the US)? Having had sex outside of marriage (probably illegal in Iran)? Having had anal sex while there was a third party in the sexual congress (illegal in the UK).

I'm sure I've done SOMETHING that is perfectly legal where I live, that would be sentenced very harshly in other countries. Of course the things I just mentioned are things that "hurt" other people as opposed to the almighty profit of US coorporations, so I suppose that I won't be extradited anytime soon.

Re:Scary ... to say the least!

[terrymaster69]

Will I be extradited for having had sex with a 16-year-old (illegal in the US)?

You can be if you did in the US then left the country - depends on the situation and the extradition treaty of the country you fled to.

The idea is that he was committing crimes inside the United States - the fact that he resides in Australia means he needs to be extradited.

Re:the joys of a wired world

[Anonymous Coward]

tried at the hauge

Under what laws? U.S. Laws? EU laws? Does the hague have to follow U.S. precedents? Do U.S. courts then in turn have to follow hague precedents that interpret U.S. laws? Are judges in the hague then subject to the same oversight as U.S. judges if their rulings on U.S. laws are abusive/incorrect, etc? Or at the least, can the U.S. congress pass a law to overturn a hague ruling? Or what if the hague ruling interprets U.S. Constitutional law? Are U.S. courts then bound by the hague-based interpretation of their constitution?

I'm not trying to flame ya. I'm just trying to imagine the unbelievable super-jumbo supreme sized can of worms you just described in one line....

I fear the fall of the Empire.

[Dzimas]

Sooner or later, the backlash against the USA will be enormous. And it will be unplesant to behold. After all, most of the world's manufacturing ain't done there... I certainly can't think of one DVD player, TV set, MP3 player (iPod included) that is made in the US. Their cars aren't the best (Dodge Neon, anyone). All that's left is a few billion dollars of entertainment industry (I'm ignoring their incredibly advanced arms industry for a sec...), and if that falls... whew. No Britney, no Ben Stiller, no ER, and no money to fund the next round of incredibly dangerous Plutonium Nyborg-tipped missiles. And, what do you know, the Chinese ones will be 10x more accurate, 100x cheaper, and available in a variety of pastels.

Re:...doesnt look good

[Izago909]

Yes, how dare a foreign citizen break U.S. law while never stepping foot inside the U.S. What was he thinking? After this precedent has been set, I hope you don't violate another country's laws on the internet, because it means you could be extradited.

American law != International law

[chrispyman]

Since it's quite likely that this guy was violating Australian copyright laws, though probably more leanant than any US ones, why does the US feel the need to punish him HERE??? Perhaps the more disturbing issue is will this case define the internet's legal jurisdiction to be that of the United States thus ignoring the world wide scope of the internet's audience?

What about Austrailia???

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are most of the posts here negatively directed at the US? After all, it was Austrailia that agreed to extradite this guy. Shouln't the negativity be directed there instead?

Behold the power of "Free Trade"

[JohnA]

I think if we Americans realized the power held by our non-elected, non-accountable "trade representatives", we would be absolutely appalled.

America's Free Trade representatives require so many concessions from foreign governments for the pleasure of a "free trade" agreement with the United States.

These government employees have a mandate to spread U.S. style laws across the world. The cost is, of course, the loss of any individuality possessed by participating states.

Regardless of your feelings about the current administration, you should closely scrutinize the actions of some of the most powerful people in the administrative branch... people who have no accountability or oversight.

A Worst Case Scenario

[Starji]

The real problem with this is that while he may have criminally infringed on copyrights in the US, he also did so everywhere there is internet access. Like it's been said, he's never been to the US, yet he is being tried under US law. What's to keep other countries across the world with similar copyright laws from trying him for his crimes. It's not like double-jeopordy exists everywhere, let alone US double-jeopordy. Worst case this could set a precedent that if you commit a crime on the internet, every country on earth could get a piece of you. So he goes to jail for a few years in the US, then say the UK wants to try him, then maybe Germany, or France, or Canada, or whoever. That's what I'm worried about.

Re:A Worst Case Scenario

[phorm]

It's not about where he criminally infringed so much as from whom the "piracy" took place though. I seriously doubt that the US would have intervened if it were a company without vested US interested that had been "infringed" upon.

what countries DON'T care about western copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason this guy is under so much fire is simple: He violated copyright in a massive way ("US$50 million" worth) and corporations want to send a message that this is not okay. They're right: Australia respects US copyright law, and has extradiction treaties that can theoretically, and in this case demonstrably, be brought to bear on an offender.
So my question is, what country does not? Surely there is a country which simply doesn't care about western copyright, and does not have a system of laws and treaties under which the copyright of another country can cause extradition.
Now, here is the key to satiating my relentless craving for bits and bytes: the violation of copyright exists in the REPRODUCTION or DISTRIBUTION of material protected against such acts except where authorized. It says nothing about owning copyright materials.

Have you noticed that it doesn't matter how many pirate DVD's or videos you have, it is the houses with a thousand BURNERS churning out the pirate goods that get raided? THIS IS THE LAW.

So, I figure I can go to a government in which 100% of American bits and bytes are in the public domain, pay the government-owned publishing house a modest fee, and return with 100,000 pages of everything I'd ever want to read, for example, for pennies on the gram-square-meter.

This is the same as when I buy a jazz CD from 1942 sources that in France is in the public domain. (As I understand it.)

The consumer is NOT LIABLE.

Okay, comments?

Practically a Human Rights Violation

[ortcutt]

Given the dangerous conditions in US Prisons, it's surprising that civilized countries are still willing to extradite people here.

Re:...doesnt look good

[flakac]

"Unfortunately, he will probably be convicted..."

Why "unfortunately"? Sidestepping the usual arguments based on the communist manifesto ("information wants to be free"), look at it from another angle.

If the man broke the law, he should face the consequences. He broke into a computer in the USA, so he should be tried there. If it was your home computer that he broke into, you'd be screaming bloody murder, but he broke into a campus system, which somehow makes him a "hero".

He illegally distributed stolen software via this computer in the USA, so he should be tried there.

what's the big deal?

[flacco]

the potential penalty is.

as RMS succinctly put it at a presentation i attended several months ago: in the US, you can now be sent to prison to be raped for sharing software.

this fact short-circuits any rational discussion one might have about jurisdiction, extradition, etc.

Re:...doesnt look good

[belmolis]

According to the article, the ring of which he was allegedly a member made use of machines at MIT. If true, although he didn't physically set foot in the US, he did indeed commit crimes in the US. Moreover, copyright is protected in Australia and most other countries and by international agreements. This doesn't seem to be a case of unreasonably applying local laws to someone elsewhere who doesn't know about them or who has no reason to believe that they are relevant to him.

There are some kinds of net activity that present real jurisdictional problems, e.g. kinds of speech (such as insulting Islam) that are legal in some places but not in others, where an activity that is legal in one place spreads to a place where it is illegal by the normal operation of the internet. As far as I can see, this case doesn't fall into that category. If I sit at my terminal in the US and break into a computer in Australia and do mischief there, I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong and I have made an explicit decision to do it. It didn't just happen in the course of the normal operation of the net. Why shouldn't I be subject to prosecution in Australia?

Re:...doesnt look good

[G-funk]

That makes no sense. It's illegal for me to buy x-rated porn in Brisbane. But it's perfectly legal (not just unenforceable) for me to mail-order it from Canberra - posession of porn isn't against the law. However, if it became illegal for me to posess "Jenna loves Kobe", should somebody in Canberra be liable for me buying it from them?

Hicks and Habib

[ozmanjusri]

It seems somewhat ironic that the US is so keen to extradite this fellow for what we hope is a fair trial, but are not prepared to return David Hicks or Mamdouh Habib to Autralia or to try them in a civilian court.

what a great victory!

[sofar]

No we can finallay extradite all those US-based spammers and sue them to sh*t from europe, africa and asia!!!!

Re:Your Rights Online and Offline

[sofar]

Contrary to what you think international law does not exist. Merely extradition agreements and gentlemens agreements, often backed up by large groups of lobbyists and large corporate organisations that are the only ones that transcend borders and thus have interests in such agreements.

The only real exception is the EUROPEAN UNION, which has laws that govern parts or ALL 25 MEMBER STATES. The rest of the international laws can be erased with a pencil if anyone wants to.

Look before you leap !

[e_AltF4]

Let's send that W4R3Z H4X0R to US jail then ...

I would expect some not so nice consequences in international relations

- having to send all Guantanamo staff and the US military commanders to Afghanistan, GB, Iran or Iraq for kidnapping, torture, illegal imprisonment etc. to stand trial according to local laws

- extradition request from china, russia, saudi arabia ... for "grasing some palms" to get that big power plant / communications / oil contract - let the CEO come and face a chinese court or Shari'ah (Islamic Law)

You can't expect the world to respect YOUR laws, but constantly ignore THEIRS - can you ?

Extradition treaties 101

[JaredOfEuropa]

Suddenly, somebody from France extradites you for attempting to sell "military munitions to civil personnel". But wait a minute... it's not illegal to own that in the US! But, it is/was being sold to people IN FRANCE!

Most extradition treaties work like this: you can only be extradited for things that are illegal in both countries. My country's treaty with the US has some additional provisions, such as exclusion of stuff that is punished much harder in the US, and exemption of criminals who are likely to face the death penalty in the US. These treaties work like this for the situation you brought up.

Unless I miss my guess, warezing (sp) is a crime in Australia as well, and this guy can be extradited.

Re:the joys of a wired world

[jetmarc]

> ... then the country that the person is in can try them because they pulled
> the trigger in that country. This same thing can apply to the internet.

But then the question remains: WHERE is an internet crime committed?

a) in country where the content was created and/or hosted? (here: australia)

or

b) in the country where the content is received and viewed? (here: US, among others)

If you go with b), one could arbitrarily choose any country at wish. Clever
delinquents could even go one step further:

1) commit horrible internet crime
2) choose country with weak and light law
3) let someone from this country view content
4) get prosecuted for it in that country
5) dont get prosecuted in any other country (nor home country, nor US) anymore,
because one cant be prosecuted twice for the same crime

-> get away cheap with horrible internet crime

its all about the money...

[iamrob]

Essentially its about money. I would assume it comes down to the fact that proported 'losses' (never mind if the software would have been purchased legally anyway) are mostly from US owned / based companies.

Thus, Australia, ever so ready to co-operate with said world superpower for strategic and financial incentives may extradite him for an 'appropriate trial' ie. another instance (RIAAesque) of big business run America making examples of pirates.

The thing that gets me is that this attempt at extradition is a direct comment on either inability to appropriately deal with this in our own legal system, or the fact that the US will benefit more from prosecution on their own shores, with their own media.

Re:The Empire is history

[bstarrfield]

As an American, I have to say I agree with your points. I think the situation is actually far worse:

• The economy is loaded with debt - both consumer and governmental - on an incredible scale.
• The US dollar is due to collapse, dramatically lowering the standard of living for most Americans.
• Our dependance on petroleum continues to increase.
• Immigration continues to occur at the rate of 2 million people per year, despite massive unemployment among minorities. When will our minorities actually realize that they have little or no hope of a better future?
• Our military is growing, consuming more and more resources and people.
• Income inequality is mammoth and increasing. The middle class - key to any democracy - is being squeezed to oblivion.
• Our appointed president will likely win the next election through slandering his opponent, bringing four more years of secrecy and gifts to corporations.
• The religious right has continued a century-old campaign to eradicate evolution in the classroom;

I think the best thing for America would be to have the Empire fall - concentrate on what made our country great, not attempting to conquer the world. Our arrogance, hubris, is the key to our destruction. And I think it's coming much faster than most people realize.

What about war crimes?

[benj_e]

What about the idea that some European countries have about trying someone for crimes commited in another country? Seems like the same principle.