Slashdot Mirror
Australian Extradited For Breaking US Law At Home
An anonymous reader sends us a link to a report in The Age about an Australian resident, who had never set foot in the US and broke US intellectual-property laws in Australia, being extradited to the US to face trial. Hew Raymond Griffiths pleaded guilty in Virginia to overseeing all aspects of the operation of the group Drink Or Die, which cracked copy-protected software and media products and distributed them for free. He faces up to 10 years in a US jail and half a million dollars in fines.
Why is this news? Sounds to me like he broke a US law that the AU has an equivalent law about, and the us wants him to be on trial here first. Plus the AU has agreements with the US to comply. Sounds like SOP to me.
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
How soon until the drums of revolution stir?
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
It's been common knowledge for years that Howard is Bush's lapdog, but if his government isn't even willing to protect its own citizens from foreign prosecutions, how can you really say Australia isn't just a puppet state of the US?
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Can someone point out a few cases where the news was somewhere along the lines of "American Extradited For Breaking [fill in foreign country] Law At Home" or does this business only work one way?
Others, however, argue that extradition is necessary to prevent internet crimes that transcend borders.
But yet nothing is done to catch the 419 scammers and all the spammers selling (often fake) pharmaceuticals.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Most countries have extradition treaties, meaning they've specifically agreed to send citizens to foreign countries to face prosecution if a formal request is made. You actually want it this way. Wouldn't be much fun if criminals could commit crimes with impunity just because they weren't physically in a country. Now I'm not saying software piracy should be one of those crimes, but let's be real here. What if there was an organized crime boss, living in the US, ordering the deaths of Australian citizens? Would you want the US to extradite him to face justice or would you want them to say "Well he wasn't committing any crimes here, and since he's not in Australia you can't have him, sorry."
Since we don't want criminals using national borders to shield themselves, a large number of nations have extradition treaties with each other. There are restrictions on those treaties, for example Canada can refuse to extradite in cases where the person would face the death penalty, but in general if it is a legit request, the extradition is honoured.
I'm a bit stunned that Australian law obviously allows extraditing their citizens to other countries. Here in Germany such action is _strictly_ prohibited by the German Constitution.
Sigs suck!
Pretty sure we don't get a star. I'm not a US-political-system buff but don't the stars represent states which have some kind of representation in the US federal government? If so we obviously don't have any such say so we'll just get pencilled up somewhere in the paperwork as a lackey state. :/
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
No, Aussies don't get a star, just a brown dot... ;)
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Why is this news?
Perhaps the fact that he isn't under US jurisdiction?
He most certainly is under US jurisdiction. We own the Australian government, which means we own Australia, which means we own your ass. Break our laws and we'll slam you in our prisons, because we can, and it makes us money to do so.
Welcome to the new world order, Bush (Sr., Jr.) and Clinton style.
Until Australia (and, for that matter, the UK) learns to stand up to the world's biggest bully (what to my immense shame is what my country, the United States, has become), they and their people will be under our jurisdiction, subject to our laws on their own soil, and with no protection from their own governments. Just like the soviet satellite states of the last century, we'll let you wave your own flags and call yourselves whatever you like, but fuck with us and our cash flow, and we'll slam you into our gulag.
You want this to not be the case? Then elect and demand a government with some backbone that will tell the United States exactly where it can get off.
... the war on terror made this extradition a lot easier?
Why, yes! I AM new here.
The Aus government is working it's way to being a U.S. state.
We are making our military hardware compatible with theirs, we are fighting in stupid profit based wars that go against the international community with them.
They don't hand over their war criminals for international trial, and now they expect everyone around the world to respect their laws.
Americas international standing is reducing every day. And judging by the media driven fear of the outside they are cultivating and the laughable democratic system and a retard for a president, they are well on the way to being the worst totalitarian state out there.
We have the names of U.S states and capitals rammed down our necks by countless TV shows and movies and they don't even know we have states.
I hope Iran/China/N. Korea gets some US citizens extradited too as part of this new high in international cooperation.
Does this mean the USA has executive, legislative and judicial power over Australia, making Australia essentially another state of the USA, under the control of the US government?
The technical term is "territory;" you'd be just like Puerto Rico. No representation in Congress, but you don't have to pay Federal taxes either.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Australia is just another state of America now days.
Every law America passes Howard has to pass it as well.
Howard is bushes lil bitch..
The only difference is the people and these are the kind of people who wouldnt sue citizens of other countries without first fixing their own countries problems.
Not exactly, you signed up to the EU Extradited extradition which permits extradition for crimes including computer crimes (e.g. breaking DRM, no kidding). However that only applies to within the EU. But if the US can get a puppet government (e.g. Blairville) to issue a warrant for anyone in Europe, they can then extradite using the UK to US expedited extradition treaty.
o n_hacker/
There's no limits on re-extradition.
Worse, there is no judicial check in the UK, that the reasons given for the extradition, really complies with the requirements for extraditing. This is why a McKinnon (who broke US PCs into had a look around and left) is being accused of doing $5000 damage to each PC, in order for it to be a Federal crime and hence extraditable. The extradition mechanism doesn't let a UK judge check it.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/25/extraditi
In theory they could make any allegation against any UK citizen and get them extradited (kidnapped in effect) and the court could do nothing.
[rant]F***ing Blair. We elected a leader, and he became a Bush follower and sold us out. I'll piss on his grave when he dies for the damage he's done to the UK sovereignty. [/rant]
US: All your Australians are belong to us.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
According to TFA, the average imprisonment term is less than that of copyright infringement. Women being considered 2nd class to men would be the only way to explain how something that hurts an entity (corporate or personal) financially has a greater punishment than something that hurts primarily women physically, mentally, and for a long time.
(And me before you get all technical on me, I did say primarily women, but men can be raped as well...)
This message brought to you by Jack Schitt's Previously Shat Shit
Let's try it.
It can't be too hard to isolate an American who has broken Australia's laws. Anyone want to bet that it won't work the other way?
Serious question: If it doesn't work the other way (that Australia cannot sentence American citizens), then could this decision be reversed?
Captcha: Pleaded. How appropriate.
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
Thankfully we still have some sanity here in NZ. Although there was perhaps some keenness to hitch up withAustralia in the 1980s and 1990s, less kiwis think thta way now.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Globalization is the word of the day .. Globalization is the theory of the day.
the GlobalJail may be the first real implementation.
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the conduct results in one or more infringements of the copyright in a work or other subjectmatter; and
(c) the infringement or infringements have a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright; and
(d) the infringement or infringements occur on a commercial scale.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than 550 penalty units or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the conduct results in one or more infringements of the copyright in a work or other subjectmatter; and
(c) the infringement or infringements have a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright and the person is negligent as to that fact; and
(d) the infringement or infringements occur on a commercial scale and the person is negligent as to that fact.
Penalty: 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both. There is absolutely no reason to extradite him except for political convenience or expediency, which should NEVER be a basis for depriving someone so severely of their status as a citizen. As Justice Young noted, we should beware allowing (and effecting) foreign prosecutions where the conduct is almost entirely referential to Australia.
If equivalent offences were not in existence in Australia, then perhaps I might be more willing to accept it (although even then I would have drastic reservations). As it stands, I cannot accept this.
errr . . . except that he is being extradited to the USA
As you were.
I always thought extradition was for when you commit a crime whilst living in a foreign country, they send you back to your mother country for punishment - so at least family can visit you in jail etc.
Phoning Australia from the US sure is going to eat his phone credits!
Sounds like the Aussie government is another of Bush's World Police bitches.
#include <sig.h>
This is really wrong. The crime didn't take place on American soil. If someone is going to be tried under a foreign country's court, they should have the right to vote for the laws that he or she is being tried under.
No. The guy is australian, broke australian law whilst in australia - why the F**K is he being tried in America again?
If you break a law in a country you get tried IN THAT COUNTRY. Extradition works to preserve that - if you break the law then leave the country, you can be extradited BACK to that country to stand trial.
Many countries will refuse extradition requests if the penalty could include death.
1) Pass new sentancing guildlines (all pirates must 'walk the plank')
2) Then countries will refuse to extradite all pirates
3) Profit!!!
...dummy /sarcasm
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This is so crazy, that it would be funny if he weren't facing a 10 year jail sentence. Doesn't jurisdiction come into the picture here? Authorities use it to pass over stuff that they don't want to investigate all the time don't they?
Australian has no real rights like the right to free speech in America, Our government will bend over backwards for any foreign country that has the slightest shred of power. Sure we have a lot of privileges that we take for granted but our government can take them at any time if it wished. And most of the population is ignorant about this... We get fed the illusion through our tv which nearly all the law/legal shows are american. And that keeps most of the people happy.
This is where we are, our rock we stand, among the world, looking forward, eternally.
Surely he could fight this under one of the Geneva Conventions on the basis that America tortures prisoners?
-1 not first post
there where charges in the past against the US government for spying on british business and passing the information to US business. therefor going after a foreign citizen is not a big issue, not whene money is involved.
"nil mortifii sine lucbe"
...that Australia no longer has genuine national sovereignty distinct from America. We haven't been our own people culturally or economically since the 80s, and the free trade agreement coupled with Howard's ongoing earnestness to subjugate himself to the American government as much as possible are just more nails in the coffin.
:(
The fools who were so adamant for Australia's split with the English monarchy now failed to realise one crucial detail; Australia's genuine independence is never going to happen. If we split with England entirely, America will rush in to fill the void before anyone can blink.
Welcome to the 51st state.
Somebody should have told this guy about OSS.
Pretty much, except we don't get to vote in US elections...
Before you hit the flamebait button, please listen: The issue here is more widespread than you think. In this case they were stealing software, breaking the anti-piracy measures and redistributing it. What about hacking a computer in another country, stealing credit cards and selling the cards or charging them? What about training radicals to hop onto planes and commit crimes in other countries? What about private groups of citizens launching rockets across the border into neighboring countries? In what jurisdiction does the crime occur? What if the other government refuses to prosecute? Should it escalate to a national or international conflict?
The fundamental questions is, what do you do when someone from another country harms your citizens or destroys their property? Criminals used run for the state or country border to avoid prosecution. No they just play in the fuzzy areas of national sovereignty. Many of the conflicts in the world follow this pattern. In this case Australia decided to hand the criminal over the the US for prosecution. Maybe they are trying to send a message to criminals hiding behind these gray areas of sovereignty.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
You are absolutely right! Foreign citizens have absolutely no rights for a trial when they are extradited to the US. But realistically the purpose of extradition was to provide a means of "reacquiring" US citizens who have committed crimes in the US and then fled to the safety of another country.
;) Sorry NewYorkCountryLawyer I really do like you.
I do not know much about Drink or Die but based on the article I would assume that they primarily reverse engineered copy protections and what not. If this is the case then I am not even sure how they would come up with an accurate number for damages. I personally believe that while it MAY be wrong to download music or whatever, under no circumstances is it wrong to provide someone with the information in order to do it themselves. Or we should arrest everyone who has ever shared any information that someone else could use for nefarious purposes, here are some examples that I think we should act upon immediately:
1. Scientists - these guys are constantly releasing information about different chemical compounds, not to mention explosives, and nuclear materials. All of which can be used for most evil of plots.
2. Anatomy Book Publishers - these guys release books teaching "students" about vital portions of the body. Now how many serial killers do you know that were never a student?
3. Lawyers - I am not even going to justify this one
4. Mothers/Fathers - When I was a kid my parents gave me the birds and the bees talk (you know the one about sex). Man now that information can be used in some pretty evil ways. It is a good thing that I am on slashdot and therefore am sexual incompetent so I have not been able to utilize this evil knowledge fully.
$diff terrorists hippies
$
$rm -rf *terrorists *hippies
Australians would do well to read the IP section of thier free trade agreement with the USA
o utcomes/08_intellectual_property.html
http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/
The guy is australian, broke australian law whilst in australia - why the F**K is he being tried in America again?
The guy is British, broke American law while in Australia (it wasn't like he was merely copying, where he would have been prosecuted in Australia, he was also helping to run a server in America), and why the F**K do you capitalize America but not "australia" (sic)?
Someone needs to ask for the extradition of your president and our prime minister for crimes against humanity - starting illegal wars, killing 10,000s of civilian non-combatants, detention without trial and lots more bad things.
Obviously they are not illegal in the USA or the UK because they say so, but there are lots of places where this sort of behaviour is against the rules. If such extraditions are not a good thing, perhaps someone should say why mass murder is less important than intellectual "property".
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Doesn't he get a public booting now? It's our proudest tradition!
To extend the situation...a lot of things that Americans do daily are illegal in other countries (especially muslim countries), and carry severe penalties (like stoning to death for having sex with someone you're not married to, for instance)...would you be happy for US citizens to be deported to those countries to face those punishments for 'crimes' committed in the US?
Did you pay the Harry Fox agency the appropriate license fee to reproduce those lyrics?
No?
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
All Aussie should, right now, right an email to their MP, asking them why this has happened, and why we are pandering to the US. It's a blatant double standard, since. Brad Murdock wasn't extradited to the UK for murdering Peter Falconio...why?
kill all the fucking niggers
I've been marked as flamebait often for lot less. One point to make - /. moderators are from US mainly, and therefore moderation most likely will favor US citizens and opinions (aka it is BIASED).
If Raymond had broken U.S. law while in the U.S. then I would have no problem with this extradition. When you travel to another country you must abide by its laws. This was not the case however. This extradition sets the precedent of a citizen of a sovereign nation committing a crime on the soil of his own nation and being extradited and tried according to the laws of a foreign nation.
What is wrong with this? What's wrong is wrong, right? Well, the problem is that, in a democracy, citizens need to have a say in how they are governed. The law is not an absolute and universal code. It is there to serve the people, and the people are therefore responsible for writing the laws they are governed by. With these extraditions, suddenly citizens can be governed by laws they had no say or representation in writing.
If these extraditions are allowed to continue, citizens may face penalties for things that are legal in their own country, or penalties far harsher than their country would normally permit. As a ridiculous example, say that the U.S. signed such an extradition treaty with an asian nation where drug running was punishable by death. (Yes, this example is ridiculous because, as others have pointed out, the U.S. tends to be "more equal" than other nations in this sort of treaty.) Say that a U.S. citizen who never left U.S. soil masterminded a drug ring which was responsible for sending large ammounts of drugs to this asian country, so that asian country requested his extradition, got it, tried him, and executed him. (Again, I admit this example is ridiculous. I merely use it to convey the principle of my argument.)
This extradition sets a dangerous precedent, and I sincerely hope that the Australian government comes to its senses before it's too late. Protecting IP just isn't worth this kind of legal fascism.
I was going to ask whether this couldn't have been tried in Australia. Thanks for the details.
Get a load of that. Now, australian citizens not only have to abide by their OWN law, but also RIAA.US laws too.
what kind of suck-ups are running australia ?
Read radical news here
The worst would have to be the laws of the English language. They could start by pronouncing herbs the right way. Perhaps there could be extraditions treaties with the UK and Canada until the Americans start getting it right.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
people that the Chinese government deems criminals.
TFA says he is a Briton living in Australia since the age of 7, but doesn't mention his actual citizenship. I wonder if that played a part in the willingness of the Aussie gov to extradite. I think this is a very slippery slope they have ventured out onto and sets a dangerous precedent, which is what future legal actions are usually based on.
What happens if a muslim-centric country wanted to extradite me for breaking sharia laws? I've dated a woman that was separated but not divorced, consumed alcohol, don't adhere to the dress code, etc... Does this now mean that the US gov would willingly extradite me to Iran to be tried? It would seem that they already set the precedent that it would be acceptable.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
I send a stack of ripped pixar moves to your gmail account. That account is normally served somewhere like India but a server failure causes it to be hosted for a while in the USA. By managing your email you are now helping to admin a server in the states. Should you be extradited to the USA?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
hmm... and how many US torturers have been extradited to Iraq to face punishment for crimes they actually committed on Iraq soil? Somewhere something has gone terribly wrong....
The US argument is presumably that the copyright owners are in the US, but so what? If I injure a German person while he visits France, should I be extradited to Germany from France? This whole issue just seems bizarre.
;)
I think this needs some clarification. It goes like this: if you commit the crime of pissing off a corporation based in the US you should be "extradited" into the sun. Failing that (due to the still quite inefficient technology nowadays) we'll do the next best thing: 10 years in a US pound-me-in-the-ass prison and additionally a fine of half a million US dollars. That'll teach ya
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
I am an Australian expat, resident for some years in New Zealand, and have broken no laws of this land.
:(
But New Zealand has an extradition treaty with China.
I've done some work - totally within New Zealand - on anonymous publishing and encryption software, and shared it freely with the world. What I've done is totally legal here, but it's likely I've infringed on numerous sections of the Chinese criminal code.
So theoretically, the Chinese Govt could file a request to the New Zealand government for my extradition. The only thing that stops them is that my part in developing this software has been pretty small, and likely hasn't presented a huge obstacle to domestic Chinese law enforcement. I'm pretty small fry. But if any of my code, for instance, gave Falun Gong or pro-democracy protestors a huge advantage in concealing their activities from the Chinese authorities, I could be looking at a long holiday at the Beijing Hilton
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
So does anyone know what software he "pirated?"
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
Cirtainly not. It's even the case that the US believes so much in the principle of trying its own citizens themselves that they have vowed to break any of their military personnel out of any jail anywhere in the world if they are incarcerated, even if the charge is crimes against humanity and the jailor is the international community (UN).
The hipocricy is so pungent that it's becoming hard to breathe. Or maybe that's just the carbondioxide from millions and millions of beefcows eating their way through the rainforests of southamerica.
Badgers, we don't need no stinking badgers! - UHF
You remember the movie "King Kong", where the villagers tied up the woman outside the village as a sacrifice, to keep the 8,000-lb gorilla from destroying them? Me neither...
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
extradite him to the internet. have the trial in second life, and behead him in world of warcraft, or something
all joking aside, crimes committed on the web are rather diffuse in terms of national sovereignty. extradition to the usa is obviously retarded, but maybe being tried only in australia is a bit daft too. of course, it will never fly, seeing as countries can't agree on anything substantive enough in theme, but perhaps crimes with a mostly online component to them can be referred to a special international jurisdiction sometime in the future. who knows, maybe some future case will scream for the necessity of sich a thing, such as every country wanting to try the guy, if his crime were vile enough, such as causing economic damage in dozens of country due to some malicious worm, for example. his punishment of course won't be virtual, but it could be agreed upon internationally and then served at any number of countries according to some sort of protocol
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The only thing that could possibly make sense to me... is that somehow someway the crime involved servers or computers existing located in the US. If that is the case this makes sense. Just like the UK extraditing the hacker that broke into NASA machines. If not then I don't know which government is being more despicable the US or the Australian on second thought I'd say the Australian government because they are failing horribly to protect their own citizens.
If I stole something from Asda (UK supermarkets owned by Wallmart), then clearly this would affect the US business at least a little. So would I be extradited for that? I'm sure even if it was major fraud, I'd still be tried under English Law. Why is copyright law so different? Their "losses2 occured all over the world.
American's do not speak English they speak American. Problem Solved. The fact that you can understand some of what I, a dumb American, say is a miracle.
I don't know the full facts of the case, so I'm just going to throw this out there - perhaps this was because the smugglers mentioned in that article were two Pakistanis and an Iraqi? That is, not nationals of Thailand. Furthermore, perhaps people all round lacked confidence in the incorruptability of the Thai judiciary. As a means to avoid bribes (or even death threats) from the smugglers' connection, they deemed it more appropriate that the three be tried in Australia. I would also argue that the smuggling of people into Australia involves a greater and more direct effect on Australia as a country than the effect on the United States that "passively" making copyrighted material available on the internet would have.
51st state? If only. Americans look after their own. The Australian Government does not. The Australian Government giving up an Aussie because the American Government asks for it? Happens all the time. The American Government giving up an American citizen? Hah! It'd never happen. The Aussie Government routinely passes American laws because it's a kiss ass nation. The American Government passing Aussie laws? Bloody unlikely, 'mate' The Aussie and US Government signed a free trade agreement. It banned agriculture which is Australias prime export. Since the deal, the trade balance has favoured the US. America looks after America's interests. Australia kisses asses. Australia isn't worthy of being the 51st state (because it doesn't act like one) Australia is an ass kisser.
why the F**K do you capitalize America but not "australia" (sic)?
laziness!
Personally, I moderate on the merits of the post. I have stopped correcting spelling/grammar errors by followup comment as I've discovered that English is not the first language of many posters, although their point of view is as valid as mine. Please don't be misled by the fraction of slashdotters who are loud-mouthed assholes and swagger around like ultra-patriots. Since this is supposedly a free nation, all of us must suffer the inelegant employment of that freedom by some in order to justify our own. I repeat, we are not a monolithic nation, but I concede it could look that way from afar...
What can anybody do about it? Gripe on Slashdot?
"From the abyss of my parent's basement, I strike at thee with my nerd forum debating skills!"
I'll post the obvious - 10 years for copyright infringement, and much less for murder in the US? Pffft!
The USA is the world's most progressive nation, in the sense that it is the first and best democracy...
Honestly, is that what they teach you in America? The word democracy is an ancient Greek word. Why would the ancient Greeks have a word for something that didn't exist until 1776? Because democracy existed long before the United States did. India was a democracy 8000 years ago, Afghanistan and Pakistan 6000 years ago. The Iroquois Confederacy, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Althing in Iceland, early medieval Ireland, the Veche in Slavic countries... all democracies, all before the US came into being.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I think some people may be missing the point.
Griffiths has admitted to copyright infringement, which is criminal in both USA and Australia (and almost all other countries). It doesn't matter that the victim of the crime lives in another country; imagine if you could send threatening letters or bombs to someone, and get away with it just because the victim lives outside your country's jurisdiction. As long as you commit the act while being within the borders of your country, and the act is criminal, you could and should be put on trial.
The weird part is putting Griffiths on trial in USA instead of Australia. The act has been perpetrated on Australian soil by an Australian citizen, so Australian law and Australian courts should apply. Only the victim lives in USA.
I suspect this is yet another symptom of the hübris of US-American government: they think their rules should apply to everyone else. If a US citizen commits a crime against someone in a foreign country, he is put on trial in USA. If a foreign citizen commits a crime against someone in the USA, the US government wants to put him on trial in USA too. US government believes it should have the jurisdiction over any crime that is committed in USA, *or* by a US citizen, *or* against a US citizen, even though it conflicts with every other country's right to do the same.
And, of course, it's also a symptom of the lack of backbone of the rest of the world.
Not really. From outside the US I see a bunch of right-wingers arguing with another bunch of right-wingers about how far to the right the most acceptable form of government is. Now if you actually had a party that was on the left, then you might be able to call the voting public polarized, but until then...
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
The US will ask for extraditions such as this one, for obvious non violent crimes (in the US), but when it comes to their own agendas (like sponsoring terrorism via the CIA), they will not let other nations get their justice. As is the case of Luis Posada Carriles a known airplane bomber and former CIA operative, Posada has been accused of involvement in various terrorist attacks and plots in the Western hemisphere. But the US government won't extradite him to Venezuela. Or even keep him in jail.
Seeing as most /.ers seem to also be Libertarian voters, and it's a rare occasion that any Libertarian politician is elected for anything in the US, I would say that even if most of /. is from the USA, very few of them actually hold the same political mindset as your average American voter.
Collector's Edition
Holy crap! That's the longest reaching example of legal reciprocity I have *EVER* seen. They talk about living in a police state, but a police planet is a bit much!
Its ridiculous to call Democrats anything but on the left when they're trying to advance gay rights and keep abortion legal.
Would you like to try again?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
If you do business in a State (using the work 'state' expansively to mean both a nation and a U.S. state), you place yourself under that State's jurisdiction. Now the word 'business', like the phrase 'interstate commerce' is itself legally expansive. Using the telephone is interstate commerce or business. Selling something or even sending something over the wire to a person in any State means your a now voluntarily placing yourself under the jurisdiction of laws of the that State. Sorry, but as soon as the guy sent cracked IP to the US, he put himself voluntarily under US jurisdiction and legally became fair play for prosecution and extradition. If he had confined his activities solely to Australia, then he would have been outside of the US jurisdiction and only subject to Aussie law.
Check your fact: You would definitely NOT land in jail if you spit on the sidewalk of Indonesia.
If you delay pleasure infinitely, the pleasure will be infinite. (YM)
... wearing any pants? I mean, could they have picked a less flattering picture?
It just so happens that those two issues have virtually no effect on the economy and labour. When it comes to the non-trivial, both parties are really just factions of the business party.
It's important for the parties to engage in vigorous debate over issues that are divisive, difficult to resolve, and don't threaten the establishment either way. It's the illusion of democracy. Where are the democrats on public health care, the environment, and not starting illegal wars?
And I'm unsure if this condition can be fulfilled in the US at all; I remember someone describing the US legal system as: "Trial: A dozen laymen decides who has the better lawyer."
Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
The people get the government they deserve.
Commonly attributed to a line in Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy In America", though I couldn't find it.
Deleted
Isn't it wonderful that the world is becoming a borderless utopia? The laws you must obey have been multiplied by about 200.
Bush will be gone in two years, regardless of if you love the guy or hate him to his core. The U.S. Constitution has spoken, and it is unlikely that he will ever run for public office again in his lifetime. Some former presidents have become senators or in one case a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, but most end up like Bill Clinton or G.H.W. Bush.... elder statesmen who occasionally get sent as "official representatives" to state funerals (aka Yeltsin most recently) or speak out about "humanitarian" causes (both elder Bush and Clinton were involved with the Indian Ocean tsunami relief as well as Katrina relief efforts).
It amazes me that some current presidential candidates are writing up their campaign platforms to be "anti-Bush" as the guy isn't even running. Even those of the same political party as Bush come from positions very much outside of the current political clique that is running the U.S. government at the moment, so it should be obvious in a couple of years that a very new political philosophy is going to be taking charge regardless of who actually wins the presidential election.
As far as complaints about the destruction of the American political system, you may wish for this to happen, but the current government (speaking broadly here) is very much in charge. I would dare you to find any major government in the world that has so successfully killed any internal domestic groups advocating rebellion and revolution as throughally as the U.S. government has. And to do so with a willing population supporting such moves. Groups like the SLA (Symbonese Liberation Army), Al-Queida, Hell's Angles, "The Mafia", or even weird attempts to spark a coup in America like the "American Liberty League" have all been effectively eliminated from within the borders of the USA. Even groups like the "militia organizations" which advocate extreme interpretations of the 2nd Amendment ("right to bear arms") have been neutralized in such a way they pose no real threat.
This isn't to say that unlike international perception, that the USA is living in a police state. We aren't. Political opposition does happen, and it is possible to say that you think the current president is a stupid pompous ass and needs to be thrown out with the trash, and to do so right in front of his official residence. If you tried to do that in China, you would likely end up in prison, or would quietly "disappear". Legitimate opposition political movements are tolerated (you just can't advocate armed rebellion) and even encouraged. If you think this is what a fascist dictatorship really means, I would strongly suggest you crack open history books and read a little more on Hitler and Mussolini to see what such dictatorships really were like. This does not exist in America.
I assume that you do not have a problem with me counterfeiting Australian dollars while I am here in the US and selling them at 0.10 per dollar over the internet? I see a raise in my future.
----- There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend; those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
Is there anything we can do!? I'm an American (and a conservative one who disagrees with most of the political opinions posted here), but I'm appalled by this. There is no way he should have been extradited to the U.S. at all, let alone facing a trip to American jail! I wouldn't stand for an American being ripped from here to another country for something done here, so I'm not quietly going to stand for the reverse.
Who can we contact?
Xesdeeni
I mean, the big bad US military is scraping the bottom of the recruitment barrel and radical religionists are slapping our Iraq forces around exactly as predicted in 2002. They're using 1950s technology...think of what the English could bring to bear against an American invasion!
:(
We're scared in the USA too...our government has run amok and the salt-of-the-earth joe-jobbers have authoritarianism firmly lodged in their throat. Their years of cheerleading Bush's imperialism has rendered the gag reflex inert.
It's a sad time for the USA
Blar.
There's a difference between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. Under the Roman Republic, subject peoples were often ruthlessly exploited by Roman businessmen but the establishment of the Principate under Augustus brought the worst excesses to an end. The Roman Empire was a very benign superpower. The Romans (until the rise of Christianity) was a pluralist society that embraced all the cultures within its borders. Minorities (except Christians) were allowed to practice their beliefs without persecution as long as no-one was injured in the process. In most cases conquered nations were allowed to keep their own form of government, customs and legal systems with the understanding that Roman Law superceded local laws. As the oft quoted lines from Life of Brian go "Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" - Brought peace. Wherever the US goes, they rarely bring peace with them. They do bring, however, exploitative and ruthless businessmen.
Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
Those are two small points which don't actually affect left or right. Here in the UK, the Conservatives are also pro-abortion and gay rights, but they are most definitely right wing.
To be left wing, the Democrats would have to be advocating free health care for all, promoting unions, calling for national industries like power companies and telephone companies to be nationalised and removed from private ownership, abolishing private schooling for a state only system, etc etc.
The Democrats do no such thing, and are NOT a left-wing party, and the only main policy differences between the two major parties in the US are the small ideological things. The two main parties put in these ideological choices such as abortion and gay rights to give the illusion of choice, when in fact there is none.
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
People here are ignorant, they believe that casting a vote for someone who might not win is a wasted vote, so when they consider who to vote for, they also consider the likelyhood that that candidate will win. I honestly couldn't tell you WHY this is, because I'm not ignorant and I vote for who I think serves my interests best, but that's the best explanation I've been able to come up with so far.
Bart: Hey, G.I.Joe: your sign's broken. We're already in Australia.
Marine: Actually, Sir, the embassy is considered American soil, Sir!
Homer: Really? Look, boy, now I'm in Australia...[hops over the line] Now I'm in America...Australia! America!
Bart: I get it, Dad.
Homer: Australia! America!
Marge: Homer, that's enough!
Homer: Australia! America! [gets punched] Ow!
Marine: Here in America we don't tolerate that kind of crap, Sir!
(Source)
In the american political spectrum, the Democrats are considered a left-wing party. When compared with many other countries, such as many western and central European ones, both the Democrats and the Conservatives are considered right-wing parties. This is because our (I'm Swedish) left parties are much farther to the left than the most left-wing party you have. Your "left-wing" party, the Democrats, are pretty comparable with our right-wing parties, the Moderates and the Christian Democrats. Going left, we find the Peoples Party (the Liberals), the Center Party, the Environmental Party, the Social Democrats and the Left Party (previously, the Left Party - The Communists). I guess you have no communist parties in the United States. :)
Since when did Australia get annexed to the USA ? As a Canadian I'm a bit jealous (psych!)
:P He's probably responsible for some heavy-duty stuff in the world of copyright law. On the other hand, what the hell kind of pansy-ass government ships off their own criminal to the states ? If Australia wants to prosecute their citizen, go nuts! If they don't, then leave him be. That's probably why he lives there in the first place. The internet makes it easy to participate in global activities, but so does the telephone and snail mail.
I'm divided on this issue. For one, the accused is a lead member of what was one of the largest software pirate groups in the world, which is pretty crazy compared to the buddy-trading we used to do in the 80's and 90's
I can't lie, I want to see this guy walk free, on principle. World leaders want to go on having their separate countries, distinct law systems and economic boundaries... well they have to go all the way! I don't think it's reasonable to open the borders whenever some high-ranking official deems it "necessary", but keep them closed for everything else. If Australia wants to be USA's sock puppet, they might as well become the 51st state and enjoy ALL the benefits of being part of the USA, including their foreign policy.
"G'day mate! I'm Canajun!"
-Billco, Fnarg.com
What you have to realize is that you are projecting European problems/values on Americans. In Europe, for the most part, you are culturally the same. You share the same morals, so you don't argue about morals. You have varying ideas about socialism, so that is what you argue (from the American perspective, you are arguing about how close to disaster you can dance).
In the US, everyone is from a different culture. Everyone has different morals. Those things are hard for us to agree on, and we debate them endlessly...
But everyone in the US (except for the Native Americans) left your type of country and came here in search of freedom, fro the most part economic freedom. So we really do agree for the most part that socialism is bad. We are starting to disagree about that, because the pioneering heritage is slowly leaving us, but it still is not the thing that divides us the most.
By the way, this really bothers those of us that really do want economic freedom - the country we fought for (we are the ones in the military for the most part) is being subverted into a socialist place we would not want to live.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Isn't it enough that I follow the laws of my own country?
Should a US citizen be required to follow the laws of my country? There are many acts which are considered illegal and immoral in Sweden, but are legal in the U.S.
(Besides, extradition should only occur if the alleged act is criminal in both the country requesting and the country making the extradition.)
Good point, although I don't think we would have an extradition treaty with China under those circumstances. We shouldn't at least... just like we shouldn't do business with them until they clean up their human rights records. And no, the US's isn't perfect either.
Welcome to the American Emprire! There's nowhere you can hide from our corporate power. On my mark, get on your knees and open wide:
1. 2. 3. MARK!
"If you simply note our last two Presidential elections, you'll see that we are as polarized as it gets..."
Sure, until you notice the fact that in the US 'left' politicians hold similar positions on contemporary political topics to those held by centrist politicians in most other nations. As for 'right' and 'far right' candidates....well, in most other countries they would most likely be locked up for being a public menace.
Sure, Americans are pretty polarized. But political opinion in the US appears to occupy only one half of the political spectrum.
What if somebody managed to mail a bomb from AU to USA, without it getting caught at customs. Now let's say the bomb worked properly, and blew up a citizen in the US.
In which country would the bomber most likely be tried?
As has been mentioned earlier in various comments, the action at hand is illegal in both countries... I'm not sure why it warrants extradition to the USA when a trial in Australia would be perfectly valid. Is there a precedent for this under other crimes committed from one country to another?
Actually we do have a communist party. I know someone who joined because they get free trips out of it. They got to go to Venezuela recently (it's a small party and someone has to go to rallies). So I guess even members of our communist party are happy to live a bourgeois lifestyle.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I'm an American, though no supporter of our current regime, er, dictatorship, er, democracy, er, form of government... I think Australians should rally against this - it's total BS. (Oh, wait, is that incitement? Oops - I didn't say that, then.)
But I'm curious: after the US decides he's served his time, is he simply sent back home to Australia? Does the US pay for his flight? Is he kicked out onto the street and told to find his own way home? What happens when he's done with his jail time?
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
the unfortunate thing about representative democracy is that it often prefers a sub-optimal solution, and it would (at least in the US) be better for everyone to vote for one candidate that is not the worst (for example, i might align better with some less represented party, but would vote for the lesser evil of the two big ones if there's no reasonable chance that the others might win). so advocating people to vote for a variety of parties that are not his might not get him out of office if he can maintain his party's voter base. or at least not as efficiently as if many people voted for a coalition party. sorry, just me complaining about how it seems votes for what i actually believe in can matter so little...
the privacy of one's mind is important.
you do have something to hide.
The breadth and reach of U.S. Copyright law is astounding. There really needs to be a line drawn because the RIAA and MPAA are getting a bit too big for their britches.
It seems that way only because nobody is willing to do it. I vote with my heart (although if I agree with one of the big two parties 70% and a smaller party 85%, I'll probably still vote for the large party.) I don't do so because I expect my party to win but because I have no other way of expressing my opinion. I'm proud to vote for smaller parties when I agree with them. I want others to see that and to realize that the only way to really throw away your vote is not to cast it. I vote for the party of which I approve not because I expect a better present but because I think it is the key to a better future.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
I think this is a disgrace. A fellow Australian, who has never even been to the US, is extradited to the US for a crime that was never committed on US territory because of the damage to certain US corporations.
My main question is this: is Senator Ellison aware of what he is doing by not granting Griffith's appeal to the extradition. He faces up to 10 years for this crime, in a Virginia court; the sentence for rape in Victoria Australia is 6 years 9 months.
20% of inmates in the US have been coerced into sex and 10% of inmates have been raped [source: SPR. Prison rape is largely an American phenomenon due to an institutional apathy that surrounds it. There is no prison rape in the Netherlands, much less in the UK and in Australia, and it is also non-existent, altho for other reasons, parts of latin america (Bolivia, Venezuela). A 10 year sentence, even if served at a minimum security prison includes a very high likelihood of being raped, especially as a young male on a non-violent offence.
So how does Senator Ellison justify allowing this extradition and subsequent sentence in a US prison, far from his family and friends, at risk to his health, including a possible death sentence from HIV, for a crime that yielded him no money, but allegedly cost American corporations $50million (and most of us here would note the difference between $50million worth of software and $50 million worth of sold units).
MB--
M.
"Should a US citizen be required to follow the laws of my country? There are many acts which are considered illegal and immoral in Sweden, but are legal in the U.S. Besides, extradition should only occur if the alleged act is criminal in both the country requesting and the country making the extradition."
Exactly -- you've asked and answered your own question. If it's only against the law in Sweden but not the US, then Sweden can't extradite. If it's against the law in both countries and the Swedish government has sufficient interest in the case (say, I sat in my home in California and ran a Ponzi scheme targeting Swedes) then your government may ask to extradite.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Marc Emery
-EL
I think they pick alternative candidates in the land down under. That said, you aren't throwing away your vote if you vote for a third party. There is no lesser of two evils, the major parties are equally evil. The best you can do is cast your vote and let your voice be heard.
Your candidate might not win but at least you will be able to walk with your head held high and know you don't bear responsibility for the evils beings committed while they are in office.
To demonstrate how har it is to reverse, the US started down this path with "The New Deal" and are still on it. Read up on how FDR coerced (a particular membr of) the Supreme Court by threatenting to expand it until he got enough people on it to agree with him. Then note how the court's decisions on what was unconstitutional abruptly reversed and started expanding government.
Democracy is incompatible with freedom and liberty.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Typically, et al is referring specifically to people and is misused quite often. In this case, is it misused because the corporations named are not people, or does the "personhood" granted by their corporation make this gramatically correct?
Would it be a usage error only in countries where corporate "personhood" is considered batshit crazy?
Questions like these are why I never get favorable performance reviews. To veer back on topic, I'd like to say "me too" to your thoughts on enforcement through aggression. It simply doesn't work anymore, if it ever did. Guerrilla warfare is far too effective to rule with an iron fist. Even if you cover it with a velvet glove and then tell women to "smell the glove". Although I bet it would make an awesome rock album. The art would be fantastic.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
The mere fact that you identify leftist politics solely with identity-politics and abortion rights shows how utterly skewered to the right American political discourse is. I mean, seriously. Holy shit, buddy. Is your conception of political debate so limited that the poles are defined by pro-abortion and anti-abortion?
Makes us all criminals, as somewhere what we are doing is illegal. It does not have to be 'here', as long as it is 'there'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Well actually they do, but call it "extraordinary rendition" instead.
and Germany co-operated with it. I'm not sure if they got any actual German citizens, but I do know the US exported people from Germany. Some were sent to places like Syria for torture.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
So-called "conservativism" and "liberalism" has two parts, at least how we deal with it in the US: fiscal and social. US Republicans tend to be both fiscally and socially right-leaning, while US Democrats are also fiscally conservative, but are generally socially liberal. There's a bit of a contradiction involved in this view, as being liberal socially usually involves support for things like universal state-sponsored health care (and the other programs you mention). So, US Democrats 'balance' that by supporting socially liberal programs that don't cost too much money to clash with their conservative fiscal side (or the financial interests that sadly contribute too much to their campaigns).
At least, that's how I look at it. Opinions may differ.
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
The military was supposed to provide security while the destroyed infrastructure was fixed and the Iraqis magically banded together in a western-style democracy. 5 years out and the infrastructure is just as messed up as when the invasion finished. Military can't seem to protect that infrastructure...sounds like a slap to me. Not to mention that they had to build a freakin' WALL to divide the different Iraqi sects. A smart man would have realized that, hey, infantry != police...and that a better plan was required post invasion. Whoops! The man we got had no post-invasion plan and the poor bastards in the military are being forced to do shit they never signed up for.
The military was sent to do a diplomat's job I will admit...but to claim that they aren't pathetically failing at that job would be a lie.
Blar.
http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(03 995EABC73F94816C2AF4AA2645824B)~Recent+Statistics. pdf/$file/Recent+Statistics.pdf
the problem here is that the new coalition, BCD, is now a party and if it wishes to remain in power, it shall stay that way; it would then be a two party system then. democracy like this seems to lend itself to systems of fewer parties, and if there are many issues we care about the chance of having one of a few (even four) parties matching closely with our beliefs is small.
the privacy of one's mind is important.
you do have something to hide.
what if this guy had been a spammer? a phisher? or basically someone who had committed computer crimes from abroad?
frankly, I don't care if this guy was in the US or in AU, I don't want him to be going to jail for his "crimes", but the "US is a bully" topic seems a bit overplayed. What if there was a hacker in california sending spam and internet scams into mexico by the terabytes, would you not agree that mexico could/should come to the US and say "we want this guy"?
don
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
If you vote for a party or candidate that does not enter office, how has your vote counted at all? How is it any different from people that throw away their vote by not voting?
I dont vote. Why? Because the two big parties here (they constantly hover at ~45% and ~35% in polls) do exactly the same thing when they get elected - over and over again for the last 85 years or so. The remaining ~20% or so have zero power, and when they go into coalition always tow the majority line. How is that democracy? How is that worth voting for when you disagree totally with the 80% do and also quite a bit with what the remaining 20% do? 99% of politicians here are in it for the money. The remaining 1% are in it to get something done - and they soon realise they are wasting their time. Who would you vote for?
Feel free to play "guess the country" if you dont wish to discuss politics. That usually far more fun in fact.
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
On the other hand, when the outcome of the election isn't really at stake, becoming a voice for the smaller party that you truly prefer can be a better use of your vote.
Take two worlds: One in which Gore won in '00, and our present world. In our present world, third parties, while having no chance for the presidency, have gotten media attention. In the alternate world, some things would be the same, but others (Iraq, "War on Terror", No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies Initiative, etc and so on) would be *very* different.
*That's* what your choice actually was. And you can't claim ignorance as an excuse. You *knew* the polls had a close election, yet you still made the choice that promoting your favorite third-party candidate was more important than keeping the neo-cons out of power (2000), or kicking them out (2004).
What do yo plan do in 2008? Leave the country on its current course in order to make noise for your third-party? Or attempt to keep the worst candidate from taking power?
It might be unpleasant to think that way. It definitely insults those patriotic, democracy-loving ideals we learned in school, but at least it accepts reality as it is, and has some *actual* potential to affect the world for the better.
From inside the US, I see a bunch of left-wingers arguing with another bunch of left-wingers. People on the right are for less government. People on the left believe government is best at solving our problems. Bush has brought us more government than any liberal. My hatred for him has made me more conservative than ever. The only right-wing person running for president now is Ron Paul, but he's already getting shut out of the debates. We may not be tree-hugging left over here, but we are definitely big government left, and that is what ultimately led to this article.
the problem here is that the new coalition, BCD, is now a party and if it wishes to remain in power, it shall stay that way; it would then be a two party system then. democracy like this seems to lend itself to systems of fewer parties, and if there are many issues we care about the chance of having one of a few (even four) parties matching closely with our beliefs is small.
Looking at most multi-party (as in more then 2) systems, that is not true.
For example, the Netherlands has had its current system (with some minor changes over time) for the last 150 years and the number of parties now is a lot bigger then it was 150 years ago. Lookign around in the rest of Europe, I notice we are not unique in this at all.
The system as it is in the USA tends to lead to 2 major parties, but that in no way means every system does.
The best of the representative democracies are the ones where there are co-equal branches of government that balance each other out. This way, nothing gets done easily, which is the way the US founding fathers wanted it. When something gets done it's only because people from various political viewpoints have come to some consensus, which means somebody had to sit down and stop being horses' asses long enough to compromise.
Just look at the last 6 years of pure Republican rule in the US. It was one of the worst half-decades in the last century because when politicians feel they don't have to answer to anyone, they do what comes naturally to them: the wrong thing.
The only reason I feel a little less apprehensive about the Democrats holding two of the three branches of government is because they are such an unruly bunch, it's almost as if they are two or three different parties. You've got the populist, Blue-dogs, the liberals, the labor folks, who represent very different constituencies. When they come to some agreement, there's a good chance something good will come from it. On the Republican sides, you've got the Religious Right, then the Right-Wing Christians, and then the really Right-wing Christians, then the rich, "pull-up-the-ladder behind you" crowd, and finally, the bigots and racists. When they all agree on something, head for the hills. That's what happened in 2003 when they were all falling over each other trying to start a war...any war.
You are welcome on my lawn.
[quote]they are not meant to be, they are meant to be correctional facilities that rehabilitate criminals for return to regular society.[/quote]
... like porn. What is Porn to me may not be porn to you, and what is porn to the Muslim may not be porn to either of us. Same with Torture.
Right, life in prison is designed to be "correctional" for the inmate. This isn't an XOR problem, as you seem to suggest. Prison isn't supposed to be "nice", specifically because it is supposed to be punishment! The word used is PENAL, meaning having to do with punishment.
Case in point, Paris Hilton is spending time in the slammer, not to be "rehabilitated" but rather as punishment for repeated transgressions.
"If you consider gitmo inmates so hardened that you can't rehabilitate them, then incarceration is all that should be done."
I thought prison was for Correctional, isn't that the premise of the first quote I had??? You are simply confused and mixed up. I'm sure that complex isssues like this are hard for you to follow, but at least try to follow the bouncing ball.
"After all, if you endorse torture as a means of extracting information, you suspect that they know some pretty damn good information, in which case, why does it matter if they even have done anything bad?"
Before we can go further, please define Torture. Without a common reference, it is nothing more than nebulous term
"Affluence breeds a certain contempt toward the lower classes; the fact that you're far more affluent than the people you claim to be able to judge whether they're good or bad leads me to believe you're no better than the King in finding all poor people guilty."
What Elitist snobbery! I have no contempt for anyone, only contemptable behavior and attitudes. Want my respect?? Respect me for who I am. It doesn't even matter if I agree with you or not, I'll at least respect who you are, as a person.
"Just remember, indulging in pleasurable activities is addictive, and once all the members of gitmo die of old-age (which given their conditions won't be long), you'll be finding some other group to fuel those inherent needs of yours (I'm not convinced this desire of yours to hate is extrinsic and belongs to the group you dislike"
Right, because we don't have regular inspections by Red Cross or oversight by anyone. You are drinking too much Koolade. I've seen the reports of the "abuse" at "Gitmo" and quite frankly there isn't any "there" there. The complaint people like Amnesty International have against Gitmo isn't really about "abuse" but rather that they've been locked up without a trial by a civilian court.
"Muslims are not poor, they're all terrorists!"
I never said that. In fact, the Silent Majority of Muslims may not be. However they are just as guilty of terrorism if they don't speak out against it, whenever and wherever some illiterate Imam decides to spew the hate screed from the pulpit while they sit silently listening. The reason they don't speak out is because the radicals will kill them right then and there if they do.
Cowering in fear doesn't prevent terrorism, it feeds it. That is why its called "Terrorism". If we weren't terrified, it wouldn't have the grip it does. This is the error of the Bush (and Clinton) administration. We shouldn't be running "terror drills", we should be running "Bravery drills", where we teach people to be positively reactive, rather than negatively reactive.
"I'm not saying you _cant_ hate; it's your right to, but please don't kid anybody that you're doing this for our well-being and admit that you take pleasure in seeing a certain group whom you hate suffer."
Well, let see. I'm very much LIBERTARIAN and don't "Hate" anyone. Leave me the hell alone, and I'll do the same. We'll meet up when we have things in common, otherwise we'll leave each other be. One of my my colleagues here at work and I don't agree on much, but he and I can discuss things we do have in common.
The moment you start to tell
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It counts because *Australia has preferential voting*. If after the primary vote is counted, the party you voted for as your first preference has the lowest number of votes, that party is eliminated from the race and its votes are redistributed to other other parties according to your *second* preference. This continues until there are only two parties left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting
Whilst this system of counting is not the best, statistically speaking (the best are Condorcet methods, though they also have their weaknesses) it is simple to understand (and count), and in the vast majority of cases results in the candidate who is most preferred by the most number of people being elected.
The US method of "plurality" voting is statistically the *worst* method available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system
What Elitist snobbery! I have no contempt for anyone, only contemptable behavior and attitudes. Want my respect?? Respect me for who I am. It doesn't even matter if I agree with you or not, I'll at least respect who you are, as a person.
So.. in order to get your respect, someone has to respect you first.
Did it ever occur to you that if everyone followed that line of thought, there would never be any respect for anyone?
I'd suggest to have some basic respect for anyone unless they show to not be worth it.
It is obvious that many people around the world do not understand the Internet.
.com, .org, .gov, or .net. .us is of cource implicetly implied to any domain the US didn't assign you.)
.........please...
Let me sum it up for you. The USofA OWNS the internet.
Al Gore invented it.
The US controls the registars.
The US has graciously agreed to allow all you cyber colonies to have your own little TLDs. (please refrain from trying to polute
When you are on the internet your are on US cyber soil.
If you don't like that, then try to do something about it.
NOTE: satire
Gone to my happy place.
'One in which Gore won in '00, and our present world. In our present world, third parties, while having no chance for the presidency, have gotten media attention. In the alternate world, some things would be the same, but others (Iraq, "War on Terror", No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies Initiative, etc and so on) would be *very* different.'
This is where we disagree. I think that more or less the same actual results would have occurred but the bills might have a slightly different spin on them. Actually, the result could have been even worse. The left is just as dirty and corrupt as the right.
'What do yo plan do in 2008? Leave the country on its current course in order to make noise for your third-party? Or attempt to keep the worst candidate from taking power?'
Third parties aren't a pet hobby with only two real candidates. There is no 'worst' candidate. Either major party candidate winning is a disaster for this nation. Even a third party that doesn't recognize the need for a MAJOR overhaul of our government and an immediate and drastic redistribution of power wouldn't do any good (although it might slow the corruption slightly).
Personally I'd disagree.
In the lower house you get the individual most people within one seat prefer. This still leads to a 2 party system since in most cases only the 2 most popular people have a chance to get in.
In the upper house though, the seats are decided at a state level. This leads to a distribution of seats that should more closely reflect the preferences of the people.
The lower house is ruled by the majority, but the upper house should be a negotiation amongst the minorities. That is, if people didn't tend to vote for the same party in both houses....
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
I believe, dear sir, that that was nothing short of a cheap shot.
./'ers are 'US citizens' but I believe that most (probably the same proportion as any other country) have something unbiased to contribute. For examples, please read some of the above comments with more care.
Perhaps a lot of
.
I think they pick alternative candidates in the land down under. That said, you aren't throwing away your vote if you vote for a third party ... Your candidate might not win but at least you will be able to walk with your head held high.
We have exhaustive preferential voting, which means that quite literatlly you aren't "throwing away your vote" by giving a minor party your first preference. At the end of the voting process, your vote rests either with the winning candidate or with the canditate who came second.
As a poster pointed out above, the important considerations is who to put LAST.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
is llicit in China, Pakistan and other countries. Should all /.s be sent to rot in a Chinese prison?
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
You have more hope of making a career of playing slot machines than you do of intelligently influencing election results by "strategically" voting for the lesser man. You've been gamed, man. Wake up. That is not how democracy works.
That's right, the US isn't a democracy. We are a Constitutional republic in which our representatives are democratically elected.
Libertas in infinitum
"The only democracy to invade another democracy". I had never heard this before, and it threw me a bit, as I tried to recall a democracy invading another democracy.
Germany versus France in World War II would probably be one example (although how true the democracy that brought Hitler to power is could be questionable). Britain versus Argentina in the Falklands war could be another, although Argentina was never really truly democratic either.
The US invaded Haiti twice, in 1915 and 1994. I think Haiti was nominally democratic on both occasions, but I don't really know enough about Haiti to be sure.
A quick Google search was no real help. Can anyone tell me if dcam is right. It just seems so unlikely, but it could be true.
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
-10 ..... 0 ..... +10
Everyone starts out at 0, what they do to me and others moves them up or down the scale. I meet someone, and what they do starts the dial moving up or down the scale. It is a Log scale so 10 is harder to reach than 9, etc and -10 is harder to reach than -9.
Everyone is "equal" and created that way. what they do with it, raises or lowers their score. I'm not trusting my life to just anyone, neither will I trust someone who has earned a minus score with much of anything. People earn and lose respect, based on what they do, and their attitudes. I suppose you put everyone at +10 at the start, huh?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It's a different values system.
US courts and system of government place a high value on copyright...the right of the publisher to copy an artist's work.
Thai courts and system of government place a high value on respect for the King.
YouTube can quite successfully remove material that might bring loss of revenue...when requested by the copyright holder.
YouTube should be able to remove material that might bring loss of respect...when requested by the people who hold the King in high regard.
Thailand has an extradition treaty with the US with regard to criminal offenses...perhaps Google's execs will be extradited for a criminal trial in Thailand
That's not quite how it works here. Sweden has extradition treaties with many countries, but our law also demands that an act must be criminal in both our own country and the country someone is extradited to for the extradition to take place. Breaking a law in the other country is not enough.
Australia signed a treaty on copyright law that essentially made US copyright law become part of Australian law. Presumably, Australian copyright law is also part of US copyright law.I can say for sure that is not how Sweden's treaties work. To give up part of our legislative power to another nation would be against our constitution (with the stated exception of the laws passed by the European Union).
That is the nature of treaties. That is why the US government refuses to sign so many UN treaties. These high-sounding treaties have all sorts of subtle consequences. Who could oppose a treaty called The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Well, read it carefully, and think about how some country can interpret some of its provisions -- and then realize that that interpretion is binding on every signatory to the treaty!Well, not just any country can make an interpretation that becomes binding to the other signatories. There would have to be some kind of international court.
Apart from that, I actually agree with you. These treaties are not all good - for instance, I think some of them contain unacceptable limitations on free speech.
First you argue:
..... 0 ..... +10
Want my respect?? Respect me for who I am.
then you argue:
-10
Everyone starts out at 0, what they do to me and others moves them up or down the scale. I meet someone, and what they do starts the dial moving up or down the scale. It is a Log scale so 10 is harder to reach than 9, etc and -10 is harder to reach than -9.
So, you start with everyone at 0, others start with you at 0.
You say you start with 0 respect for them, now if they follow the same line, they start with 0 respect for you. If they wait for you to respect them first and you wait for them to respect them first, then nothing happens.
I find it really hard to believe that you cannot follow that simple bit of logic.
Everyone is "equal" and created that way. what they do with it, raises or lowers their score. I'm not trusting my life to just anyone, neither will I trust someone who has earned a minus score with much of anything. People earn and lose respect, based on what they do, and their attitudes.
That sounds about correct.
I suppose you put everyone at +10 at the start, huh?
'Some respect' is not 'utra extremely utterly highly respected'. Can't you read or what?
Howard Marks.
A non-US citizen, extradited to the US by Spain for allegedly committing crimes, none of which occurred in Spain.
If you could actually measure it, I'm betting that you are wrong. Every time we have a Republican administration in the US, we get 4-8 years of shocking corruption. Every Republican administration since Nixon, for example, has had an average of 8 times as many high-level officials convicted as each Dem administration. Carter may have been ineffectual, but he was clean. I'm born in '56 and there was only one relatively clean GOP administration in my lifetime, the one in power the day I was born.
Oh, there's scandals during the Dem admins, but they're usually BS, ala Whitewater.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I think he's referring to things like waterboarding as opposed to putting someone on the rack.
You know, making someone crack by making them think they're drowning to death but not actually leaving permanent physical damage vs. ripping up their body and leaving them crippled or dead -- the infamous "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" standard for defining torture that left out methods that left permanent psychological damage.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
It is written in several conventions and treaties.
Failing taht we have a bonafide arbiter in those matters: the Red Cross.
Oh wait, the US has not allowed access to Guantanamo prisioners to the Red Cross. How fucking conveninet, isn't it.
I think the neo-cons (and idiots like you) well know what torture is, you know it does not work (specially in a case where you want so badly to hear somethin, you have judged those individuals already in spite tht most of them had been left free because they are guilty of nothing but being in the worng place at the wrong time).
The US government is an absolute embarrasment to any people with a modicum of decency. Torturing people indiscriminately in the false hope of obtaining "information" (how do you know that a tortured person is not lying in order to stop the torture?) only creates fertile ground for more terrorists.
If your government has any evidence these people broke any laws then prosecute them and apply due process, that is what democracies where the rule of law is supposed to be paramount. Kangaroo courts to judge concentration camp prisioners is not the way a democratic system works.
You are the voice of fascism, but we are watching you and will make sure the likes of you never get their way.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Its called misdirection. The scandals in the mainstream press exist only to distract you from the real corruption. The real corruption doesn't make the news. Bills are spun one way and actually do something different or they include dozens of completely unrelated special interest provisions in the fine print. The real corruption isn't in the white house, its in congress. Not that congressmen are less dirty there are just more of them. The president is a big central figure whose primary purpose is to keep you from looking too closely at any congressmen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moazzam_Begg
Neither the Kangaroo US court not the British Judicial system cold find anything against this or other individuals.
This same theme has been repeated over and over again.
The US screwed badly, they did not have any intelligence, picked up random guys in Afghanistan and Pakistan, tortured them, had to free most of them, but here you are, defending the indefensible.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That's absolutely true. The "news" industry is there to protect the powerful. There was a time in the last century when there was an independent press in the US. Those must have been some interesting times.
There are some people working on the Internet to get real news out, but as the Net Neutrality efforts fail, they will also disappear. You can't have everybody knowing just how corrupt their leaders are, or there'd be problems.
By broadcasting only frightening news that we can't do anything about, rather than the "real news" that we could do something about (perhaps by locking up some politicians), the public is kept scared and quiet. By saying that the "Main Stream Media" is really lying, you have the best of all possible worlds for those in power: They can tell the public that they can't believe the truth. As long as we keep going to work every day and shopping every evening, the wheels keep turning. Nothing can get in the way of that.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And the problem is that any country can make that claim. If a German citizen robs a US citizen in Australia, each of these three countries can try to assert jurisdiction.
This case does not appear to be based on any of those theories of jurisdiction. According to the article, the US charged Mr. Griffiths with conspiracy. Under conspiracy, any one conspirator is liable for the acts of any other person in the conspiracy.Typically, USA will ignore other countries claims, and do what they see fit. If the alleged criminal happens to be on US ground, they will typically keep him there, ignoring other countries demands. If the alleged criminal is on foreign ground, they will typically demand him/her extradited, and apply pressure to get what they want.
USA is the most powerful nation in the world, financially and military, so it doesn't have to care about what other nations think.
Thank god that is not the case in Sweden. We don't have collective guilt; in the case of a conspiracy, each person's guilt has to be proven separately, and each person is convicted for only the part of the crime they participated or aided in.
You can, however, be convicted for accessory just by being present when the crime was committed and the circumstances show that you approved of it (for instance, if you follow someone into a house, knowing that he's intending to murder someone there).
Not that our system is perfect - it's considered very hard to get someone convicted in a court of law, even when the person is likely guilty.
This is very troublesome when applied to such a mundane crime as copying works and giving them to people who never would have bought them in the first place. The actual effect of the conspiracy is arguably insignificant. It doesn't seem as troublesome when applied to something who planned the 9/11 attacks, where the effect is very significant. But the theory of jurisdiction is the same: conspiracy with people who committed criminal acts inside the prosecuting country.And that is why laws can, and should, be changed.
... infringement in China then? Or Saudi Arabia, you know, where they cut the hands of thiefs (I very much doubt the Saud Kingdom will care aobut niceties regarding what is copyright and what is theft).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
US people vote for the government, has the power to get rid of them, and chose not to do so.
Also they freely join the army that goes and does the bid of the government and parrot the interventionist values of the political uberclass.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
They are Republicans.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So is running a casino equally heinous? Peddling pornography? How about putting sugar in food products?
Maybe the war on it is pretty ridiculous (I wouldn't know, I don't see what they're doing to combat the problem)
Well I do know. I've known a few very nice people whose only supposedly negative contribution to society was circumventing unjustifiable and largely unenforceable laws who have gone to jail for dealing pot and psychedelics. Not crack, heroine, not even ecstacy... just marijuana and mushrooms. Maybe if a friend of yours rips off Windows and has the feds break down his door, shoot his dog, and haul him off to prison where he gets to serve mandatory time (after all, we don't want judges actually using their judgment or anything), you'll have enough personal experience to give a shit about the lives that are being ruined by way of external coercion, instead of a personal choice to experiment with your own body.
I fail to see how these people were destroying society. I fail to see why we should spend tax money terrorizing our own citizens over a ridiculous culture war being largely funded/supported by the worst addicts of them all (fundamentalist zealots). I fail to see how any decent human being could support such impotent and violently enforced prohibition while there are still underfunded treatment clinics turning people away who sincerely need and want help with their addictions.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
And THIS is the seat of most of the dissatisfaction in Australia's political system - move to a "first past the post" system, no preferences, and it will make the bastards work harder.