Wow, you're a pretty vindictive bitch, Rachel. It's one thing if you have some huge moral dilemma selling alcohol to a minor (I don't know her actual age, but I'm guessing over 18 and close to 21), but wow.
You went through the trouble of essentially stalking this girl and posting her street address online - to what end? Aside from being pretty damn ignorant and assuming her political beliefs based on her father's financial actions, you seem to be living in a fantasy world where you're a cast member of CSI, doing your part to rid the world of immoral republican underage drinkers.
Seriously, Rachel, you need a new hobby.
LOL, sweet. Ol' Justin nailed my thoughts exactly when I read that crappy blog.
What makes you think it didn't happen that way this time around?
I casually know the guy who owns Space Imaging. He's an old friend of one of my oldest friends who runs a GIS company and uses tons of satellite and aerial imagery (usually of military bases, actually). These companies already operate under a vast and complex body of regulations about who can and can't get pictures of various places, so this was probably a smaller step for them to take than most people are assuming.
There are a few things to keep in mind:
First of all, they're businesses, and for most businesses, practically anything is possible if the price is right. That probably offends the wild-eyed idealism of the typical slashdotter, but slashdot is probably the last place you'll find much understanding of life in the real world.
Additionally, most of their income is derived from custom runs. So it's a pretty safe bet that the government wasn't really denying all that much information to the general public.
Finally, it seems pretty unlikely the government was buying imagery. It seems far more likely they were paying these companies to not produce it in the first place. In other words, the company says, "We average $50K per month in custom fly-overs, so if you want a 6-month moratorium, cut us a check for $300K." Certainly it was more complex than that, but I'm sure you get the gist of my point.
It's rather more difficult to search for something that specific -- and I will definitely grant that we probably issue more extradition requests than we honor. I would be interested in seeing how many extradition requests we receive in the US, versus the number we issue to other countries.
I do remember at least one case... an American citizen who was an IRA solider. Hmm... yeah, Google again. Here it is. 1986, so I suppose this will be discounted, but it does happen, and I no longer have any more time today to spend on this, or I'd keep looking -- it's an interesting question.
Does that mean my rights don't deserve protection?
No, it means I don't care what happens to you if you aren't willing to require your own government to protect you. Read what I said, not what you think I mean.
I should have said something like "constitutional guarantees" -- I was intentionally trying to avoid complicating the discussion by bringing rights into my comment. Rights absolutely do apply to everyone -- but my intent was to focus on the constitutional guarantee of representation, which is not extended to non-citizens.
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?
Google is your friend. Fron just a quick skim through the first few matches searching against "US extradites" we find the following:
The short explanation is that the charge and investigation originates in the US. I go into slightly more detail here.
I am also not a lawyer, although years ago I dated one from South Florida who happened to deal with extraditions, mainly South American stuff, so I heard a lot about it. Regarding your speculative question, generally extradition laws also require that the punishment guidelines in both jurisdictions be reasonably similar.
No, for a number of reasons. Stoning someone to death is cruel and unusual punishment, and we don't have blasphemy laws.
US extradition laws require that both countries have the same law in place, it requires a minimum sentence before extradition is an option (e.g. you can't be extradited for littering), and it requires the guarantee of a fair trial and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
Actually the "one-sided" part is that we won't extradite people for accusations that are politically motivated or for activities that are not illegal under civilian law (e.g. desertion). You can read a complete synopsis of the new treaty at the link below. Article 4 relates to the "controversial" portion:
Strange, I don't remember the Australian government doing much about it either. Make up your mind: do you want the US to play World Police or not? Damned if we do, damned if we don't -- is it surprising that we conclude we should just do what serves our interests?
If a crime boss went to a country without an extradition treaty, that would probably shield him. I wouldn't call that "making it ok" but he wouldn't face extradition. Of course, there aren't many modern, Western-friendly countries that don't have extradition treaties, so the supposed crime boss would very likely be assuming other non-trivial risks.
The part you're overlooking is that the activity must be a crime in both nations. Iran can't seek the extradition of anyone because Iran and the US don't have an extradition treaty.
Nobody said US law should apply anywhere to anyone.
I honestly can't think of any reason why someone should be extradited in this way.
At first glance, it's difficult to imagine why country A would send a person to country B for prosecution, when the person did something that is also illegal in country A. The answer relates to everything behind that single word: prosecution.
In this case, the United States has all the evidence and has conducted the investigation and is the entity making the accusation.
This is part of the reason extradition agreements are so complex. The Australian government has reviewed the United States' case against the accused and believes it has merit. That combined with the other standard rules of extradition treaties (such as a guarantee to a fair trial, protection from cruel and unusual treatment, etc) are the reasons governments will extradite their own citizens.
Lots of people seem to be overlooking the fact that the accused must break a law that exists in both countries. Your marathon masturbation sessions are safe. Proceed.
Actually, extradition proceedings typically involve agreements that specify exactly how the person will be treated, and generally speaking the right to a fair trial, a guarantee that he will not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment and similar items are part of that agreement. They don't just throw the person on a plane and hope for the best. It's a very complex, expensive, time-consuming process.
Once again, you're overlooking the requirement that the person in question broke a law that exists in both countries.
Criticizing China is not a crime in the US, so there would be no reason to extradite. Additionally, extradition laws typically require that the defendant can expect a fair trial (not the case in China) and may contain other requirements (prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, for example).
You had a good angle going, but you blew it at the end.
You're right, this is about representation first and foremost -- but the responsibility lies with citizens of other countries to ensure that their own governments protect them.
US laws -- and constitutional rights -- apply to US citizens. I'm not especially concerned about what other countries allow us to do to their own citizens. That doesn't mean I like it or condone it, but quite frankly these are the same people who deride us and our country on a regular basis. It strikes me as a little odd that their own paradisaical existence can be so terribly flawed as to permit them to be bundled up and submitted for processing by the big bad United States. Huh, maybe problems of government aren't unique to the US? Imagine that.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you're a pretty vindictive bitch, Rachel. It's one thing if you have some huge moral dilemma selling alcohol to a minor (I don't know her actual age, but I'm guessing over 18 and close to 21), but wow.
You went through the trouble of essentially stalking this girl and posting her street address online - to what end? Aside from being pretty damn ignorant and assuming her political beliefs based on her father's financial actions, you seem to be living in a fantasy world where you're a cast member of CSI, doing your part to rid the world of immoral republican underage drinkers.
Seriously, Rachel, you need a new hobby.
LOL, sweet. Ol' Justin nailed my thoughts exactly when I read that crappy blog.
What makes you think it didn't happen that way this time around?
I casually know the guy who owns Space Imaging. He's an old friend of one of my oldest friends who runs a GIS company and uses tons of satellite and aerial imagery (usually of military bases, actually). These companies already operate under a vast and complex body of regulations about who can and can't get pictures of various places, so this was probably a smaller step for them to take than most people are assuming.
There are a few things to keep in mind:
First of all, they're businesses, and for most businesses, practically anything is possible if the price is right. That probably offends the wild-eyed idealism of the typical slashdotter, but slashdot is probably the last place you'll find much understanding of life in the real world.
Additionally, most of their income is derived from custom runs. So it's a pretty safe bet that the government wasn't really denying all that much information to the general public.
Finally, it seems pretty unlikely the government was buying imagery. It seems far more likely they were paying these companies to not produce it in the first place. In other words, the company says, "We average $50K per month in custom fly-overs, so if you want a 6-month moratorium, cut us a check for $300K." Certainly it was more complex than that, but I'm sure you get the gist of my point.
PiNazi.
It's not just a spec, but the best implementation available now that Microsoft has stopped writing JVMs.
Fixed.
(Been awhile since we had a Karma fire.)
Christ, kids, you're ALONE out there.
It's rather more difficult to search for something that specific -- and I will definitely grant that we probably issue more extradition requests than we honor. I would be interested in seeing how many extradition requests we receive in the US, versus the number we issue to other countries.
0 DE4DC1F3CF932A15753C1A960948260
I do remember at least one case... an American citizen who was an IRA solider. Hmm... yeah, Google again. Here it is. 1986, so I suppose this will be discounted, but it does happen, and I no longer have any more time today to spend on this, or I'd keep looking -- it's an interesting question.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A
Does that mean my rights don't deserve protection?
No, it means I don't care what happens to you if you aren't willing to require your own government to protect you. Read what I said, not what you think I mean.
I should have said something like "constitutional guarantees" -- I was intentionally trying to avoid complicating the discussion by bringing rights into my comment. Rights absolutely do apply to everyone -- but my intent was to focus on the constitutional guarantee of representation, which is not extended to non-citizens.
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?
Google is your friend. Fron just a quick skim through the first few matches searching against "US extradites" we find the following:
2006
2004
2001
2000
Explained here. Basically it comes down to who is levying the charges and who conducted the investigation.
The short explanation is that the charge and investigation originates in the US.
I go into slightly more detail here.
I am also not a lawyer, although years ago I dated one from South Florida who happened to deal with extraditions, mainly South American stuff, so I heard a lot about it. Regarding your speculative question, generally extradition laws also require that the punishment guidelines in both jurisdictions be reasonably similar.
The Hicks situation wasn't an extradition scenario, he was captured in a war zone fighting against US troops.
No, for a number of reasons. Stoning someone to death is cruel and unusual punishment, and we don't have blasphemy laws.
US extradition laws require that both countries have the same law in place, it requires a minimum sentence before extradition is an option (e.g. you can't be extradited for littering), and it requires the guarantee of a fair trial and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
Actually the "one-sided" part is that we won't extradite people for accusations that are politically motivated or for activities that are not illegal under civilian law (e.g. desertion). You can read a complete synopsis of the new treaty at the link below. Article 4 relates to the "controversial" portion:
http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/34885.htm
Explained here...
Strange, I don't remember the Australian government doing much about it either. Make up your mind: do you want the US to play World Police or not? Damned if we do, damned if we don't -- is it surprising that we conclude we should just do what serves our interests?
If a crime boss went to a country without an extradition treaty, that would probably shield him. I wouldn't call that "making it ok" but he wouldn't face extradition. Of course, there aren't many modern, Western-friendly countries that don't have extradition treaties, so the supposed crime boss would very likely be assuming other non-trivial risks.
The part you're overlooking is that the activity must be a crime in both nations. Iran can't seek the extradition of anyone because Iran and the US don't have an extradition treaty.
Nobody said US law should apply anywhere to anyone.
I honestly can't think of any reason why someone should be extradited in this way.
At first glance, it's difficult to imagine why country A would send a person to country B for prosecution, when the person did something that is also illegal in country A. The answer relates to everything behind that single word: prosecution.
In this case, the United States has all the evidence and has conducted the investigation and is the entity making the accusation.
This is part of the reason extradition agreements are so complex. The Australian government has reviewed the United States' case against the accused and believes it has merit. That combined with the other standard rules of extradition treaties (such as a guarantee to a fair trial, protection from cruel and unusual treatment, etc) are the reasons governments will extradite their own citizens.
I think you misread what he posted -- he agrees with you:
"The only reason any of this seems OK is because it's going on between countries with similar laws."
because German law explicitly prohibits extraditing German citizens to other countries
Not according to this German:
comment 19018473
Lots of people seem to be overlooking the fact that the accused must break a law that exists in both countries. Your marathon masturbation sessions are safe. Proceed.
Actually, extradition proceedings typically involve agreements that specify exactly how the person will be treated, and generally speaking the right to a fair trial, a guarantee that he will not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment and similar items are part of that agreement. They don't just throw the person on a plane and hope for the best. It's a very complex, expensive, time-consuming process.
Once again, you're overlooking the requirement that the person in question broke a law that exists in both countries.
Criticizing China is not a crime in the US, so there would be no reason to extradite. Additionally, extradition laws typically require that the defendant can expect a fair trial (not the case in China) and may contain other requirements (prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, for example).
-1, You Don't Get It
The concept you're missing is that it has to be illegal in both places, so generally none of your examples are even remotely applicable.
You had a good angle going, but you blew it at the end.
You're right, this is about representation first and foremost -- but the responsibility lies with citizens of other countries to ensure that their own governments protect them.
US laws -- and constitutional rights -- apply to US citizens. I'm not especially concerned about what other countries allow us to do to their own citizens. That doesn't mean I like it or condone it, but quite frankly these are the same people who deride us and our country on a regular basis. It strikes me as a little odd that their own paradisaical existence can be so terribly flawed as to permit them to be bundled up and submitted for processing by the big bad United States. Huh, maybe problems of government aren't unique to the US? Imagine that.
He also should have used the word "personally."
I'm still trying to figure out why my "enemies" would care about where I left my stuff.
"FINALLY we can steal his FAVORITE PEN!"