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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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....

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.