View Full Version : US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2982640.ece
So basically this is a case of 'might is right'?
I have to say I find the article quite disturbing, not personally, but all the same it's a bit off considering the UK already has an extradition agreement with the US.
'Special Relationship'? hmmm, not half.
As unfair as it sounds I think that if we tried this on with 'kidnapping' a US citizen and taking them to the UK, it would not be long before we brits would hear the sound of bombs falling. Metaphorically or otherwise.
This is not 'america-bashing' before any of you start. I don't believe it is right for any nation to do this, but the simple fact is the US government seems quite comfortable with brushing aside any existing agreements with other nations when it suits them, either regarding foreign policy or civil matters, like bringing 'criminals' to stand trial in the US.
The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.
Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.
Legal sources said that under traditional American justice, rendition meant capturing wanted people abroad and bringing them to the United States. The term “extraordinary rendition” was coined in the 1990s for the kidnapping of terror suspects from one foreign country to another for interrogation.
...if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: “If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.” Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged Jones to be “honest about [his] position”.
Jones replied: “That is United States law.”
I think this is wholly wrong and would not condone this action by my own country, let alone by one of our closest allies.
What do you guys think, can there be (outside of extreme circumstances) cases where one can say kidnapping of foreign nationals is acceptable behaviour by a nation who regards it own civil law as superseding that of other nations?
AntEater
12-03-07, 02:44 PM
The dangers of common law
:D
Well, you have a statement of a british laywer hired by the US government to represent them, not a statement by the US government itself.
The most recent precedent was a mexican druggie kidnapped in 1990, other than that, the chases are centuries old.
And you can't really compare some Sierra Madre Padron to a downtown London corporate suit, can you
:rotfl:
waste gate
12-03-07, 02:53 PM
This is not 'america-bashing' before any of you start.
I don't think you are trying to bash the US jumpy, the author of the story may be, however.
What is the British government's, or any other governments law regarding the apprehension of international criminals? I believe Clause Barbie was kidnapped from Argentina by operatives from another nation.
I suspect that Britain has similar law yet hasn't been in a position to state it in open court.
I believe Clause Barbie was kidnapped from Argentina by operatives from another nation.
Wrong.
Adolf Eichmann was taken by Mossad in 1960.
In this case we are talking about a different time and Nazis on the run, 9/11 changed all the rules of today.
Usually a country uses the proper international law to get hold of a "wanted" person who is hiding himself in foreign territory.
Kidnapping is called "terrorism" in another context... so state-sponsored kidnapping is very close to an act of aggresion. :hmm:
waste gate
12-03-07, 03:38 PM
I believe Clause Barbie was kidnapped from Argentina by operatives from another nation.
Wrong.
Adolf Eichmann was taken by Mossad in 1960.
In this case we are talking about a different time and Nazis on the run, 9/11 changed all the rules of today.
OK it was Eichmann in 1960. Sounds like the rules haven't changed regardless of 9/11. Letters of marque are mentioned in the US constitution. This taking citizens from other countries is nothing new. See forced conscription of other nations sailors by the Royal Navy during peace time. Those folks weren't even considered criminal.
Again, how many nations have this law on the books?
I think Dog the bounty hunter got thrown into a mexican jail for trying this.As was pointed out I think most wanted persons by the US if the country is an ally we would try to get him thru proper channels why would you not?....but also as was pointed out the US appears to have stuff on the books that regardless "how" a person was brought before an American court he will stand trial.
Who or what legitimate or law abiding country does not want criminals to stand trail anyways...wait don't answer that that was a loaded question.
XabbaRus
12-03-07, 03:51 PM
But once it starts it is a downward spiral.
So with your line of thinking Russia would be perfectly justified to kidnap Berezovsky and others and bring them to Russia for trial, the US wouldn't make a song and dance about it? Yea right.
The extradition treaty we have is one sided. It is much harder to get a wanted man from the US to the UK than vice versa.
waste gate
12-03-07, 04:15 PM
The extradition treaty we have is one sided. It is much harder to get a wanted man from the US to the UK than vice versa.
How do you know that to be the case XabbaRus?
Skybird
12-03-07, 05:25 PM
Don't get me started on this topic. :down:
Such behavior means the intended violation of the sovereignity of another state. If it is conducted without cooperation and/or knowledge of the target state, it means an act of war in my eyes. Attacking agents, no matter if american or Israeli or Belgian or Kenian ones, would - if being caught - get courtmartialed and executed on the basis of martial law and what it has to say on combatants not wearing uniforms, if it were up to me. No american agent from any of the american services has any right to enforce Ameeican laws on german/European/foreign streets, and if american law says somethign different, it still is only valid for the nation of the US, not Europe or any other nation worldwide.
US laws may not be permitted to overrule other nations laws, and the validity of US laws ends where the sovereignity of other nations begin - at the latest. Not accepting this is megalomania, arrogance, and an act of war - simply this. The world is not the rest of America. Bounty hunters may have been a tradition in the Wild West, but if they leave the Wild West and operate outside the Us, they are just gangster and criminals, needing to be locked away, or put down. f they are acting on behalf of orders from American authorities and offices, in my eyes they are commiting an act of war. And that means courtmartialing them for me (like spionage and sabotage in general is an issue not for civil courts, but military courts, since it is about attacks of one country on another). Interestingly, a longer while ago, one judge of the German constitutional court, once argued the same way on TV.
Tell Amercia that the Russians from now on, or the Danes, or Australia claims such rights in return, and attack America's sovereignity that way - and imagine what colourful, nationalistic reactions from america you would get immediately. America claims that right for itself only becasue it thinks america is allowed to do it, and it is allowed to do it becasue it is America. And that is a definitely too rich.
:down:
DeepIron
12-03-07, 05:34 PM
Tell Amercia that the Russians from now on, or the Danes, or Australia claims such rights in return, and attack America's sovereignity that way - and imagine what colourful, nationalistic reactions from america you would get immediately. America claims that right for itself only becasue it thinks america is allowed to do it, and it is allowed to do it becasue it is America. And that is a definitely too rich.
LOL! I can just imagine the furor that would ensue should a representative from any other nation enter the US with the intention of "removing" either a US citizen or a foreign national who enjoys US protection and/or immunity...
Tell Amercia that the Russians from now on, or the Danes, or Australia claims such rights in return, and attack America's sovereignity that way - and imagine what colourful, nationalistic reactions from america you would get immediately. America claims that right for itself only becasue it thinks america is allowed to do it, and it is allowed to do it becasue it is America. And that is a definitely too rich.
LOL! I can just imagine the furor that would ensue should a representative from any other nation enter the US with the intention of "removing" either a US citizen or a foreign national who enjoys US protection and/or immunity...
This is the reason that the U.S. hasn't signed on to the International Criminal Court yet - because there is a risk that one of their citizens or soldiers may be tried in a foreign court.
Jimbuna
12-03-07, 05:54 PM
But once it starts it is a downward spiral.
So with your line of thinking Russia would be perfectly justified to kidnap Berezovsky and others and bring them to Russia for trial, the US wouldn't make a song and dance about it? Yea right.
The extradition treaty we have is one sided. It is much harder to get a wanted man from the US to the UK than vice versa.
That is correct sir :yep:
I have been involved in a few instances where extradition has been refused for robbery and rape, yet we allow extradition for similar offences/crimes.
NEON DEON
12-03-07, 06:14 PM
So, if I go kidnap Osama from Pakistan and return him to a U S court, the U S court can not prosecute me for Kidnapping.
KEWL!:p :p
waste gate
12-03-07, 06:19 PM
But once it starts it is a downward spiral.
So with your line of thinking Russia would be perfectly justified to kidnap Berezovsky and others and bring them to Russia for trial, the US wouldn't make a song and dance about it? Yea right.
The extradition treaty we have is one sided. It is much harder to get a wanted man from the US to the UK than vice versa.
That is correct sir :yep:
I have been involved in a few instances where extradition has been refused for robbery and rape, yet we allow extradition for similar offences/crimes.
This started hundred of years ago and not with the US friends.
So, if I go kidnap Osama from Pakistan and return him to a U S court, the U S court can not prosecute me for Kidnapping.
KEWL!:p :p
More to the point (I think) is that in your scenario Osama would not have his charges dismissed because he was illegally apprehended.
NEON DEON
12-03-07, 07:08 PM
So, if I go kidnap Osama from Pakistan and return him to a U S court, the U S court can not prosecute me for Kidnapping.
KEWL!:p :p
More to the point (I think) is that in your scenario Osama would not have his charges dismissed because he was illegally apprehended.
Oh heck no! The goverment did not grab Osama. I did. then I walked up to the back of the jail and dropped Osama off. It was not the court, the police or the feds. Just plain ole me.
BTW
Who got kidnapped again?
I blame Bush?
My understanding is that the law exists so IF a criminal is arrested 'illegally' he can still stand trial and allow justice to be served. This is a good thing.
HOWEVER, if they tried to pull that over here without notifing and asking assitance from authorities there would be hell to pay. I'd expect the reaction would make 'freedom fries' look like a childhood prank compared to the boycotts that would start.
Let's face it, we like the USA, but being the big boy we also like to see you fall... it's human nature. :yep:
Sailor Steve
12-03-07, 07:47 PM
US laws may not be permitted to overrule other nations laws, and the validity of US laws ends where the sovereignity of other nations begin - at the latest.
Completely agree. The US has refused to let outside authorities (read UN) tell us what to do on several occassions. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
As several have pointed out, though, so far this is what one lawyer has stated, and there has been no statement from official US sources.
Intolerable.
Absolutely!
Kapitan_Phillips
12-04-07, 05:41 AM
What is the British government's, or any other governments law regarding the apprehension of international criminals? I believe Clause Barbie was kidnapped from Argentina by operatives from another nation.
I suspect that Britain has similar law yet hasn't been in a position to state it in open court.
We dont apprehend the criminals in this country.
As several have pointed out, though, so far this is what one lawyer has stated, and there has been no statement from official US sources.
Don't say that Steve! Tossing the cold water of reality on our fellow subsimmers anti-US fantasies is like waking a sleep walker... :yep:
I don't see any fantasies here myself.
And it's no surprise that no comment is forthcoming from us sources; I wouldn't want to publicly discuss some shady, outdated excuse for violating a sovereign nations boarders and abducting foreign nationals either. In essence that is what is being raised here. That the law further helps itself by discounting appeal and pursuing a conviction despite an illegal arrest.
All very convenient if the motivation is there to utilise it.
I don't doubt for a second that the UK would not take advantage of such a loophole if we thought it was to our benefit and that hardly anyone would get to find out about it.
Doesn't make it right though.
When it comes right down to it, it's an insult to any allied nation that an administration is prepared to deal with the citizens or residents of a foreign power in such an underhanded manner.
Alliances, even supposedly close partnerships like the UK/US can be shown as meaningless and 'fair-weather friendships' with such actions. I can't see how one could construe it any other way.
Tchocky
12-04-07, 09:45 AM
When it comes right down to it, it's an insult to any allied nation that an administration is prepared to deal with the citizens or residents of a foreign power in such an underhanded manner.
Alliances, even supposedly close partnerships like the UK/US can be shown as meaningless and 'fair-weather friendships' with such actions. I can't see how one could construe it any other way.
It goes against the soveriegnty of any nation, allied or otherwise. Otherwise agreed :up:
I believe that the law in question only says that a foreign suspect can not evade prosecution because he was illegally brought back to the states... it may very well be that the "abductor" would face criminal charges in whichever country he nabbed the suspect in, but that is a seperate legal issue.
I do not believe that the US advocates violating any other countries laws.
All this law is saying is that a foriegn national suspected of crime in the US , if caught (BY ANY MEANS), will face trial! (even if foreign laws were broken to get the suspect here).
The law is insensitive to foreign laws (kinda places our judicial system as "more important" than those of other nations, but the intent is good.. "prosecution of suspected criminals".
P.S. My lawyer can beat up your lawyer!
DeepIron
12-04-07, 10:33 AM
We dont apprehend the criminals in this country.
LOL! We don't either...
We give them drivers licenses, ID cards, health care, food stamps, low paying jobs, housing and social services... :damn:
JSLTIGER
12-04-07, 10:38 AM
Well, the Brits shouldn't be too mad. After all, this kind of reminds me of the impressment of American citizens into the Royal Navy in the early 1800s, but in a different context.
Tchocky
12-04-07, 11:02 AM
Well, the Brits shouldn't be too mad. After all, this kind of reminds me of the impressment of American citizens into the Royal Navy in the early 1800s, but in a different context.
Hang on, the 1812 war is over :p
Hang on, the 1812 war is over :p
How did that work out by the way? ;)
Jimbuna
12-04-07, 02:09 PM
Hang on, the 1812 war is over :p
How did that work out by the way? ;)
Generally at the tip of a sword or a musket :arrgh!:
Skybird
12-04-07, 04:51 PM
Completely agree. The US has refused to let outside authorities (read UN) tell us what to do on
That comparsion does not work, Sailor Steve, for several reasons.
1. the issue in this thread is state A acting by its own laws in violation of rules and laws of state B, inside state B, without asking it for permission, cooperation, or letting it known, and without any internationally legitimated mandate. It imposes its own laws onto that state, that way.
2. that does not compare to an organisation where membership is voluntary, and where states have agreed to certain rules to follow. If these rules then are being demanded by the many to be followed by the few or the one, then this is accordance with earlier agreements of the state, formally. Of course, the taregtted state sees that different, usually, but that is not the issue : the mechanism is a different one, than if one state violates foreign sovereign national law unilaterally and arbitrarily. Also, in this example, the UN decision making is transparent, and follows (ideally) principles even the targetted state before has agreed to (if it is a UN member), whereas the US in our example tries to operate secretly.
3. you implicitly say that the Us has a right to resist UN demands and rules, because the US is a sovereign state. On the other hand the US has no problem with the UN forming demands (with American participation) that violating the sovereignity of other nations (Iran, for example: technically there is not the smallest legal argument to demand iran to stop uranium enrichment, for example). So there is biased opportunism at work. You accept that the UN makes american-backed demands to state and violates their sovereignity in you understanding when claiming to defend that soveriegnity of the US, but you reject that the UN makes demands that you say violate america's sovereignity.
You can't have it both. It is either sovereingity for all, or for none. Ideally, the UN is not meant to be an American tool to help enforce American policies. Or any other nation'S selöfish policies, btw. In practice, it got abused from the first year on, of course.
If you want to make an argument in your reply to my earlier posting, than you need to give an example of a foreign nation that all by itself has imposed it's law onto the US and violates it's sovereignity. The UN - is no nation. It gets abused by many players, but it is no independant player in itself. It is no nation, that is.
...but you reject that the UN makes demands that you say violate america's sovereignity.
And well we should:
Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives."
That which is vested cannot be surrendered or reassigned to anyone or anything and certainly not to the UN. If our politicans were to do so it would make them traitors.
Skybird
12-04-07, 05:59 PM
then play withoiut cheats. Leave the UN. You reserve rights for yourself that you do not grant to others, and abuse the Unb to acchieve with other (sovereign) states what yiou would never accept for yourself in return.
If Iran has /or makes a law that says it shall not give up sovereignity to any international body, would you accept it unconditionally? No, you would not.
Ypou declare that ameircn laws undocntionally rule over any other nations' laws, and international laws, rules and agreement. You even vilate the sovereignity of allied nations, becaue you American law says that is fine for the US. That makes the US the centre of the known universe. and that earns you criticism, well-deserved.
T tell you the truth: I do not know anybody in Germany who sees himself as a vasall of American laws. Strange, isn't it.
If you want a supsect from european cojhntries to be handed over to your authorities, I strongly suggest that you ask us, simply that, and make treaties with us that make such cooperations a thing of reciprocity, instead of using unilateral secrecy by which you violate the sovereignity of OUR nations. Or would you like it if the BKA starts hunting US citizens inside the US and kidnapp them without ever even caring for what your authorities think of that, not to mention: your people? Like America is not one of germany's federal state, so are the european nations and the rest of the globe no part opf the united states. and that is what limits the valdity of your laws - at you borders.
then play withoiut cheats. Leave the UN. You reserve rights for yourself that you do not grant to others, and abuse the Unb to acchieve with other (sovereign) states what yiou would never accept for yourself in return.
Leaving the UN would be fine by me.
If Iran has /or makes a law that says it shall not give up sovereignity to any international body, would you accept it unconditionally? No, you would not.
Wrong. I'd accept it just fine just as i accept the concept that Germans have the right to govern themselves first and paramount.
Ypou declare that ameircn laws undocntionally rule over any other nations' laws, and international laws, rules and agreement.
I declared no such thing. According to our constitution our leaders may not enter into any treaty, agreement or abide by any international law that surrenders our sovereignity to anyone. Sorry if you don't like it but that's the way it is.
You even vilate the sovereignity of allied nations, becaue you American law says that is fine for the US. That makes the US the centre of the known universe. and that earns you criticism, well-deserved.
So US government is violating the sovereignty of allied nations because we'll prosecute a criminal that is returned to our jurisdiction even if his capture violated the laws of the country he was apprehended in? :roll: I know English isn't your first language Skybird but surely you don't expect us to let a criminal, like say a bin Laden go scot free, just because his capture violated someone elses local laws.
T tell you the truth: I do not know anybody in Germany who sees himself as a vasall of American laws. Strange, isn't it.
Not so strange I guess, we haven't seen German as a vassal state since we ended the post ww2 occupation of your country.
If you want a supsect from european cojhntries to be handed over to your authorities, I strongly suggest that you ask us, simply that, and make treaties with us that make such cooperations a thing of reciprocity, instead of using unilateral secrecy by which you violate the sovereignity of OUR nations.
And if you refuse to give up someone like a bin Laden? What then? War is a better alternative?
Or would you like it if the BKA starts hunting US citizens inside the US and kidnapp them without ever even caring for what your authorities think of that, not to mention: your people?
Nobody is saying you wouldn't have the right to prosecute the hunters if you catch them in accordance with your own laws. So as long as that's understood then go right ahead. I suppose if we really can't deal with it we can always declare war or hit you with sanctions.
Like America is not one of germany's federal state, so are the european nations and the rest of the globe no part opf the united states. and that is what limits the valdity of your laws - at you borders.
Your sarcasm aside, we'll just have to agree to disagree here Skybird. A fugitive from our justice system is still a fugitive whether or not your country decides to shelter him. We'll do whatever we can do to get him back even if it means treading on your self righteous toes a little if you refuse to cooperate.
Sailor Steve
12-04-07, 07:49 PM
And it's no surprise that no comment is forthcoming from us sources; I wouldn't want to publicly discuss some shady, outdated excuse for violating a sovereign nations boarders and abducting foreign nationals either.
I disagree, but only to the point that I think there would be some official postition either confirming or denying it. The fact that nothing has been said to me indicates that our officials aren't even sure what to make of it yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
Completely agree. The US has refused to let outside authorities (read UN) tell us what to do on
That comparsion does not work, Sailor Steve, for several reasons.
I hope you misread me, because I was trying to agree with you.
1. the issue in this thread is state A acting by its own laws in violation of rules and laws of state B, inside state B, without asking it for permission, cooperation, or letting it known, and without any internationally legitimated mandate. It imposes its own laws onto that state, that way.
Reducing that to our personal American experience, the US states bound themselves to submit to Federal authority where state versus state questions arose. While the US may refuse to submit to UN authority in some questions, a respect for the sovereignty and autonomy of other nations has to be paramount.
2. that does not compare to an organisation where membership is voluntary, and where states have agreed to certain rules to follow. If these rules then are being demanded by the many to be followed by the few or the one, then this is accordance with earlier agreements of the state, formally. Of course, the taregtted state sees that different, usually, but that is not the issue : the mechanism is a different one, than if one state violates foreign sovereign national law unilaterally and arbitrarily. Also, in this example, the UN decision making is transparent, and follows (ideally) principles even the targetted state before has agreed to (if it is a UN member), whereas the US in our example tries to operate secretly.
And some of us, at least, agree that that is wrong.
3. you implicitly say that the Us has a right to resist UN demands and rules, because the US is a sovereign state. On the other hand the US has no problem with the UN forming demands (with American participation) that violating the sovereignity of other nations (Iran, for example: technically there is not the smallest legal argument to demand iran to stop uranium enrichment, for example). So there is biased opportunism at work. You accept that the UN makes american-backed demands to state and violates their sovereignity in you understanding when claiming to defend that soveriegnity of the US, but you reject that the UN makes demands that you say violate america's sovereignity.
You can't have it both. It is either sovereingity for all, or for none. Ideally, the UN is not meant to be an American tool to help enforce American policies. Or any other nation'S selöfish policies, btw. In practice, it got abused from the first year on, of course.
Actually, I agree with all of the above. I don't have any specific answer to the Iran question, because I don't know everything, and try to withhold opinions until I have more facts. I have some beliefs where Iran is concerned, but no real answers.
If you want to make an argument in your reply to my earlier posting, than you need to give an example of a foreign nation that all by itself has imposed it's law onto the US and violates it's sovereignity. The UN - is no nation. It gets abused by many players, but it is no independant player in itself. It is no nation, that is.
Again, I wasn't arguing with you. I was agreeing.
Skybird
12-05-07, 06:22 AM
It seems that I misunderstood your first paragraph in your first reply indeed, then. I'm sorry for that, Sailor steve. I must confess, after having re-read it twice, I still would fall for misunderstanding it. Maybe I saw too little or too much irony there.
Skybird
12-05-07, 06:44 AM
Leaving the UN would be fine by me.
which still would not give you any right to act by your own rights in foreign nations and ignore their own, and impose yours onto them like in the example in this thread.
Wrong. I'd accept it just fine just as i accept the concept that Germans have the right to govern themselves first and paramount.
Then you agree that Iran should be allowed to develope nukes if they want, yes? Becasue by legal standards, they have that right.
Ypou declare that ameircn laws undocntionally rule over any other nations' laws, and international laws, rules and agreement.
I declared no such thing. According to our constitution our leaders may not enter into any treaty, agreement or abide by any international law that surrenders our sovereignity to anyone. Sorry if you don't like it but that's the way it is.
as long as your constittuion ends at your borders, I do not care. Wehre you impose your laws onto others becaseu you say your constitution allows you to do - that is were legal and justified self-defense against your trespassing of the line begins. Like in this example, which remains to be an example of wrong no matter what your constituion say on that. Becasue your rules and laws have to end at your borders.
So US government is violating the sovereignty of allied nations because we'll prosecute a criminal that is returned to our jurisdiction even if his capture violated the laws of the country he was apprehended in? :roll: I know English isn't your first language Skybird but surely you don't expect us to let a criminal, like say a bin Laden go scot free, just because his capture violated someone elses local laws.
Your jurisdiction ends at your borders, and like you would not accept others to run secret police actions in your nation, you must and have to accept that you have no policing authortiy in foreign soverign nations. You can ask those nations for that suspect, and they will decide what to do on the basis of THEIR laws then, not yours. you can be allowed by these nations to catch him yourself, or doing so but having to accept assistance from the local police. but rushing in and get him yourself and not caring at all for the sovereignity of others, is nothing else but an infiltration. No, you do not have any right at all do behave like that. You also would not accept it if others would behave like that with regard to your own country.
Not so strange I guess, we haven't seen German as a vassal state since we ended the post ww2 occupation of your country.
that could be argued about. especially the current government knows only vasalls, and nothing else. and it repeatedly has dealt with others like that.
And if you refuse to give up someone like a bin Laden? What then? War is a better alternative?
You accept it. Period. We do not talk of Bin Laden. We talk of an immoral manager suspected of having commited fraud. Leave Bin Laden out of this. As a matter of fact, as I said in my first answer, you actually commit an act of war when infiltrating and kidnapping him in violation of the countries sovereignity and laws.
Nobody is saying you wouldn't have the right to prosecute the hunters if you catch them in accordance with your own laws. So as long as that's understood then go right ahead. I suppose if we really can't deal with it we can always declare war or hit you with sanctions.
Oh, the law of the juingle! I should have known that it all comes down to that level. By that reply you indicate that you accept that Ameican agents kidnapp suspects from other nations not becasue they have a right or it is legeal, but becasue your country thinks it has the bigger club.
And I am realistic enough to very strongly assume that if the BKA would hunt down suspects in your nation in violation with your laws and not letting you know, and remaining secret about that act of violating your sovereignity, that the public outcry would be immense and most of your politicians would be in arms over this act of german aggression and arrogance.
As a matter of fact, the BKA would not even consider it, ever. Becasue our laws end at our borders, like yours have to end at your borders. the BKA has acted in foreign nations indeed. with permission of their goivernments and in lcose cooperations with their police authorities.
Like America is not one of germany's federal state, so are the european nations and the rest of the globe no part opf the united states. and that is what limits the valdity of your laws - at you borders.
Your sarcasm aside, we'll just have to agree to disagree here Skybird. A fugitive from our justice system is still a fugitive whether or not your country decides to shelter him. We'll do whatever we can do to get him back even if it means treading on your self righteous toes a little if you refuse to cooperate.
Then you are the criminal as well, behave by the law of the jungle, and commit an act of war. Your country is not the navel of the earth, and your police has no right to ignore the sovereignity of other nations, and if your laws and eventually your constitution says differently, then that is bad, and a declaration of arrogance and lacking concern.
No sarcasm at all.
The example is not about a nation giving shelter to a manager suspected of fraud. Britain did not deide to giuve him shelter. It even did not knew, and the US completely ignores Britain as if it were not there.
It also means that we are not seen as your allies, but as your vasalls indeed that you see as having to obey your orders, of course. If you really were a freind, you would have a bit more trust into our polices and legal systems as well. It is not that they are all crap and barbarism, and it is not as if american laws are the new definition of "perfect".
AntEater
12-05-07, 08:31 AM
Well, I suppose that means the Russians can kidnap Berezowsky?
Equal rights for all
:D
Penelope_Grey
12-05-07, 10:55 AM
Well Im rather confused... but I pity any American dumb enough to try and kidnap me!:lol:
Don't get me started on this topic. :down:
Such behavior means the intended violation of the sovereignity of another state. If it is conducted without cooperation and/or knowledge of the target state, it means an act of war in my eyes. Attacking agents, no matter if american or Israeli or Belgian or Kenian ones, would - if being caught - get courtmartialed and executed on the basis of martial law and what it has to say on combatants not wearing uniforms, if it were up to me. No american agent from any of the american services has any right to enforce Ameeican laws on german/European/foreign streets, and if american law says somethign different, it still is only valid for the nation of the US, not Europe or any other nation worldwide.
US laws may not be permitted to overrule other nations laws, and the validity of US laws ends where the sovereignity of other nations begin - at the latest. Not accepting this is megalomania, arrogance, and an act of war - simply this. The world is not the rest of America. Bounty hunters may have been a tradition in the Wild West, but if they leave the Wild West and operate outside the Us, they are just gangster and criminals, needing to be locked away, or put down. f they are acting on behalf of orders from American authorities and offices, in my eyes they are commiting an act of war. And that means courtmartialing them for me (like spionage and sabotage in general is an issue not for civil courts, but military courts, since it is about attacks of one country on another). Interestingly, a longer while ago, one judge of the German constitutional court, once argued the same way on TV.
Tell Amercia that the Russians from now on, or the Danes, or Australia claims such rights in return, and attack America's sovereignity that way - and imagine what colourful, nationalistic reactions from america you would get immediately. America claims that right for itself only becasue it thinks america is allowed to do it, and it is allowed to do it becasue it is America. And that is a definitely too rich.
:down:
Spot on! :up:
sparkomatic
12-05-07, 11:34 AM
not to step on any toes...but the Brits? C'Mon...I loved it when the Brits accused the US of "Empire" Building...now that is hypocracy (its in your freakin' name)
I'm in the Village. :p
Be seeing you. :yep:
Jimbuna
12-05-07, 11:54 AM
not to step on any toes...but the Brits? C'Mon...I loved it when the Brits accused the US of "Empire" Building...now that is hypocracy (its in your freakin' name)
I thought the words read United Kingdom :hmm:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/pasquarade/wolf-38.gif
Then you agree that Iran should be allowed to develope nukes if they want, yes? Becasue by legal standards, they have that right.
If a nuclear armed Iran is not acceptable to us then we have the historic option of going to war to prevent it.
as long as your constittuion ends at your borders, I do not care. Wehre you impose your laws onto others becaseu you say your constitution allows you to do - that is were legal and justified self-defense against your trespassing of the line begins. Like in this example, which remains to be an example of wrong no matter what your constituion say on that. Becasue your rules and laws have to end at your borders.
We're not talking about prosecuting a wanted criminal in Germany. They would be brought back to the US first.
Your jurisdiction ends at your borders, and like you would not accept others to run secret police actions in your nation, you must and have to accept that you have no policing authortiy in foreign soverign nations. You can ask those nations for that suspect, and they will decide what to do on the basis of THEIR laws then, not yours. you can be allowed by these nations to catch him yourself, or doing so but having to accept assistance from the local police. but rushing in and get him yourself and not caring at all for the sovereignity of others, is nothing else but an infiltration. No, you do not have any right at all do behave like that. You also would not accept it if others would behave like that with regard to your own country.
You're repeating yourself which does not help your brevity problem Skybird. Again, if you don't like it then war is always an option.
that could be argued about. especially the current government knows only vasalls, and nothing else. and it repeatedly has dealt with others like that.
That statement just shows that you have absolutely no clue what a vassal really is. A vassal has no rights. You my fine vassal friend enjoy the same rights I would in our justice system.
You accept it. Period. We do not talk of Bin Laden. We talk of an immoral manager suspected of having commited fraud. Leave Bin Laden out of this. As a matter of fact, as I said in my first answer, you actually commit an act of war when infiltrating and kidnapping him in violation of the countries sovereignity and laws.
First off why not talk about bin Laden? Does he not fit into the fake outrage you're trying to portray here in this thread? As for your immoral manager example, obviously any fugitive recovery would have a risk/reward assessment associated with it. You can try to paint a picture of armies of US agents sweeping the German gutter for fugitives from our justice system but you greatly exaggerate. A failing of yours I continually note in your posts concerning my country. One would almost get the idea from reading them that you don't really like us...
Oh, the law of the juingle! I should have known that it all comes down to that level. By that reply you indicate that you accept that Ameican agents kidnapp suspects from other nations not becasue they have a right or it is legeal, but becasue your country thinks it has the bigger club.
My country does have a bigger club. A much larger one than the world will ever allow Germanys to get again I tell you whut.
And I am realistic enough to very strongly assume that if the BKA would hunt down suspects in your nation in violation with your laws and not letting you know, and remaining secret about that act of violating your sovereignity, that the public outcry would be immense and most of your politicians would be in arms over this act of german aggression and arrogance.
Uhh, if they remained "secret" how would our population/politicians know to get up in arms?
As a matter of fact, the BKA would not even consider it, ever. Becasue our laws end at our borders, like yours have to end at your borders. the BKA has acted in foreign nations indeed. with permission of their goivernments and in lcose cooperations with their police authorities.
Your laws do not end at your borders Skybird. Are you trying to say that a fugitive from German justice is no longer a fugitive because he runs past your borders? That's just silly.
Then you are the criminal as well, behave by the law of the jungle, and commit an act of war. Your country is not the navel of the earth, and your police has no right to ignore the sovereignity of other nations, and if your laws and eventually your constitution says differently, then that is bad, and a declaration of arrogance and lacking concern.
Accusations of arrogance from the forums arrogance king mean very little to me Skybird.
The example is not about a nation giving shelter to a manager suspected of fraud. Britain did not deide to giuve him shelter. It even did not knew, and the US completely ignores Britain as if it were not there.
It also means that we are not seen as your allies, but as your vasalls indeed that you see as having to obey your orders, of course. If you really were a freind, you would have a bit more trust into our polices and legal systems as well. It is not that they are all crap and barbarism, and it is not as if american laws are the new definition of "perfect".
You really ought to rein in your strawman arguments a bit because I never said that your laws are "crap and barbarism". Of course we have trust in our friends legal systems or else we'd still be running your government like we did in the post nazi era back when we couldn't trust you. But don't expect us to let some mass murderer go just because you personally don't like the method we used to apprehend him.
If we want to put a bounty on a fugitives head we will. If someone collects that bounty by delivering him to our jurisdiction we will not let that fugitive go because someones feeling got ruffled.
If you really our friends you wouldn't be sheltering our fugitives in the first place.
Oh ffs! Why you guys keep on arguing over as simple things as this.
US laws mean sh*t outside of US, if there's no permission from the nation US is trying to apprehend a suspect from, then it is illegal for US to do so and for what I understand, the suspect could shoot the agent and call it self-defence and he would most propably win the case.
The bottom line is, that no matter if your country would cover 99% of Earth, it does not give you rights to not go by the laws of the nation you are arresting someone from.
This is very simple and needs few words.
Facts:
1) In the UK you need authority to arrest someone legally.
2) The USA has been granted no such authority on British soil.
3) When one sovereign state intentionally breaks the law of another sovereign state it
is an act of war. (i.e. a breach of sovereignty).
Conclusions:
1) If the USA attempts to arrest someone on British soil they do so illegally.
2) If the act is sanctioned by the US Government and it is intentional then it is a act of
war. (i.e. a breach of British sovereignty).
There can be no doubt that this is the case.
For any individual or nation to shrug and say "so what?!" is highly disrespectful and a
very poor reflection upon them.
Jimbuna
12-05-07, 12:50 PM
When was the last time Bush listened to any facts, or agree with the conclusions of others? :hmm:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/pasquarade/wolf-38.gif
...the suspect could shoot the agent and call it self-defence and he would most propably win the case.
I don't think anyone has argued that he shouldn't be able to defend himself, have they?
All I have said, repeatedly, is that if a fugitive from our justice system ends up in our hands again we will prosecute him. We will not agree to letting that fugitive go just because the method by which he was brought to back violates the laws of someone else.
To do so would be just silly.
When was the last time Bush listened to any facts, or agree with the conclusions of others? :hmm:
Yesterday.
Jimbuna
12-05-07, 01:22 PM
When was the last time Bush listened to any facts, or agree with the conclusions of others? :hmm:
Yesterday.
What was it? :hmm: Could be a first, I'm kinda interested :lol:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/pasquarade/wolf-38.gif
A fugitive does not cease being a fugitive 'because he runs past your borders', rather your jurisdiction to prosecute an arrest within someone else's which is in question.
It's the fact that any nation is prepared to 'ruffle the feathers' of an ally, rather than liaise with that country's police and judicial authority to bring a 'wanted' person to answer to any accusation, that's the problem.
But this is why nations have agreed extradition policy and co-operation between authorities, supposedly. Saying that 'we have a bigger stick than anyone else, so what you gonna do about it?!' and behaving as you please in someone else's jurisdiction is wrong.
I suppose it's different if one nation doesn't recognise the legitimacy or authority of the government of another, in the same way some people are not recognised as legitimate combatants under certain laws. It is correct. But only on a legal technicality which not all are in agreement with.
:-?
On a personal note, I do not believe the remark about having a 'larger one [club] than the world will ever allow Germanys to get again' was entirely necessary; the implication is clear and not relevant to this topic.
Jimbuna
12-05-07, 01:49 PM
So what would Americas response be if a load of countries decided to rip up their extradition treaties with them? :hmm:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/pasquarade/wolf-38.gif
So what would Americas response be if a load of countries decided to rip up their extradition treaties with them? :hmm:
I imagine that, like most countries, we would resort to kidnapping the suspect and getting them back to the states for trial.
I still think a lot of you are reading too much into this law..
nowhere has it been said that kidnapping a suspect is the "prefered method of fugitive recovery, nor has it been said that if someone did kidnap a fugitive, that person (the kidnapper) would not be subject to the laws of the country he was working in.
The only thing this law states is: If a suspect/fugitive falls into our hands (even if he was illegally removed from a foreign country) he will be prosecuted. The suspect/fugitive will not be allowed to avoid prosecution because an illegal method was used to get him.
The law is about the suspect/fugitive.. it says nothing about the person(s) who recovered the suspect/fugitive.
Skybird
12-05-07, 02:26 PM
We're not talking about prosecuting a wanted criminal in Germany. They would be brought back to the US first.
No - we talk about you braking our laws first when kidnapping a suspect, maybe even a citizen of our country, in our country.
You're repeating yourself which does not help your brevity problem Skybird. Again, if you don't like it then war is always an option.
yes, I heared that some Americans are very easy about that option.
That statement just shows that you have absolutely no clue what a vassal really is. A vassal has no rights. You my fine vassal friend enjoy the same rights I would in our justice system.
according to you, your laws overrule that of any other nation there is. In your eyes, other do not have any right to have another right - than yours.
First off why not talk about bin Laden?
Because the thread is about business managers having commited fraud, and I do not accept you to distract attention and soften the focus to make you evading your implicit statement that American law rules over allmother laws of nations, internationa bodies, whatever - not just inside the US, but on the whole globe. Megalomania that is, trying to deceive hostile reacions by claiming to be a "better" civilization and having a moral mission to bless the planet with your rules and views. Total BS.
Does he not fit into the fake outrage you're trying to portray here in this thread?
He does not fit into the scheme of usual legislation and corrupt business men commiting fraud, like Hitler also does does not fit, Stalin does not, Mao Tse Tung does not, and any other guy guilty of multi-thousand-mass-murder. It's lightyears apart. That's why they had that special tribunal in Nürnberg, and not just a local civil process in the village office at Bad Heidenfeld.
As for your immoral manager example, obviously any fugitive recovery would have a risk/reward assessment associated with it. You can try to paint a picture of armies of US agents sweeping the German gutter for fugitives from our justice system but you greatly exaggerate.
Nonsens. It was a lawyer working in the name of your nation rtelling US that your nation in principle claims the right to kidnapp our citizens, if yopur laws want him to hold accountable for soemthing, no matter what, and his guilt not proven. Even being as sleek as an eel and sly as a fox cannot make you avoid this simpole fact. so if somebody exaggerates something here, then you nation.
the proper way is to put a request at a nation that you have a lawcase against somebody belonging to us, and sghow us the evidence you have. Our courts decide wether or not that is good enough or not. Eventually, the person gets handed over. And if they say no, to use your own wording, you are free to wage war against us. what you effecitvely do by commiting the act of war by secretely trying to kidnapp one of our citizens.
A failing of yours I continually note in your posts concerning my country. One would almost get the idea from reading them that you don't really like us...
That is the typical kind of rethoric I always get from you when you do not have valid arguments left. Next I expect somebody reminding me how much we owe your fathers for fighting against the Nazis.
My country does have a bigger club. A much larger one than the world will ever allow Germanys to get again I tell you whut.
Ah, there is the reminder of the Nazis that I just predicted coming. Yes, your nation has a big club. and you use it to ignore the sovereignity of others, and complain for being described as somebody treating "allies" as vasalls.
Uhh, if they remained "secret" how would our population/politicians know to get up in arms?
Yes, that joke is really funny. i admit that I laughed for a second.
Your laws do not end at your borders Skybird. Are you trying to say that a fugitive from German justice is no longer a fugitive because he runs past your borders? That's just silly.
No. I say that we do not violate the laws and sovereignity of others nations where the suspect is hiding, but that we ask the foreign nations cooperation, and explain them why. we just don'tride into Dodge, take what we want, and get away. Our laws end with our borders indeed. that does not mean that the suspect all of a sudden if innocent. It means that oyu law does not overrule that of other nations. Including america, btw.
Accusations of arrogance from the forums arrogance king mean very little to me Skybird.
You behave and argue like megalomaniac gangsters - you get called megalomaniac gangsters. Only logical. Your rethoric isn't too interesting either. Try to leave the personal attitue out of it - if you can.
You really ought to rein in your strawman arguments a bit because I never said that your laws are "crap and barbarism". Of course we have trust in our friends legal systems or else we'd still be running your government like we did in the post nazi era back when we couldn't trust you. But don't expect us to let some mass murderer go just because you personally don't like the method we used to apprehend him.
This is not about mass urderers, but economic criminals: I wonder why it is so difficult for you to focus on the issue at hand: Manager. Fraud. When you think you must kidnapp a suspect from another nation, then you illustrate that you do not trust that nation, and do not trust it's laws and rules, and that you see your demands overruling any other nation'S laws and sovereignity. You argue schizophrenic here, acting one way - and say 180° the opposite.
If we want to put a bounty on a fugitives head we will. If someone collects that bounty by delivering him to our jurisdiction we will not let that fugitive go because someones feeling got ruffled.
Once again you - intentionally? - misinterpret the case at hand. If the bounty-hunter would be a private enterprise, we woukld deal with them as usual criminals, sentence them,, sicne the yommited a crime in our land, and against our laws, and there is no deal the Us would have in it. But if the bounty hunter indeed is acting by order of the Us government or authorities, and is representant of amerian offcies indeedd, it is no private affair, but an offcial case "state attacking state". and what that means in my understanding, I have made clear.
If you really our friends you wouldn't be sheltering our fugitives in the first place.
If you would be our friend, you would not violate our laws and rules in the name of your laws and rules, and in our lands, and kidnap maybe even one of our citizens. You would adress us, telling us your cause, show us your evidence, and trust in our reason. But you claim the right not to do any of these. You behave not as friends, but like gangsters in the night. That sounds harsh, and it is, but it is what it is.
But your pathetic moaning about us not playing to your rules is nothing new - when we did not follow you into your Iraq adventure, you also accused us of not being your friends. But as friends that we were, we warned you not to jump out of the window blindly, but to let it be, for you were about hurting yourself. freidns care for each otherk, you know. Friend that you are, you did not listen to us for you wished to have your will, no matter what, and so you even made a head-jump out of the window. And while you were lying down there and suffering a massive headache, you called us cowards for not following your stupid example, and tried to play one half of Europe against the other.
Strange understanding of friendship that is when it means you always claim all for yourself and everything has to go to your will, your rules, your laws, your interests.
Skybird
12-05-07, 02:35 PM
A fugitive does not cease being a fugitive 'because he runs past your borders', rather your jurisdiction to prosecute an arrest within someone else's which is in question.
It's the fact that any nation is prepared to 'ruffle the feathers' of an ally, rather than liaise with that country's police and judicial authority to bring a 'wanted' person to answer to any accusation, that's the problem.
But this is why nations have agreed extradition policy and co-operation between authorities, supposedly. Saying that 'we have a bigger stick than anyone else, so what you gonna do about it?!' and behaving as you please in someone else's jurisdiction is wrong.
I suppose it's different if one nation doesn't recognise the legitimacy or authority of the government of another, in the same way some people are not recognised as legitimate combatants under certain laws. It is correct. But only on a legal technicality which not all are in agreement with.
On a personal note, I do not believe the remark about having a 'larger one [club] than the world will ever allow Germanys to get again' was entirely necessary; the implication is clear and not relevant to this topic.
Well said.
NEON DEON
12-05-07, 03:04 PM
The US has extradition treaties with both the UK and Germany.
If you are a German citizen and you commit an extraditable crime in the US and flee to Germany, then be prepared to face trial in the US or sometimes Germany.
If Germany refuses to honor the treaty, anything goes. Afterall, you broke the treaty.
:up:
A site dealing with extradition law:
http://www.internationalextraditionblog.com/firm.html
So what would Americas response be if a load of countries decided to rip up their extradition treaties with them? :hmm:
I imagine that, like most countries, we would resort to kidnapping the suspect and getting them back to the states for trial.
I still think a lot of you are reading too much into this law..
nowhere has it been said that kidnapping a suspect is the "prefered method of fugitive recovery, nor has it been said that if someone did kidnap a fugitive, that person (the kidnapper) would not be subject to the laws of the country he was working in.
The only thing this law states is: If a suspect/fugitive falls into our hands (even if he was illegally removed from a foreign country) he will be prosecuted. The suspect/fugitive will not be allowed to avoid prosecution because an illegal method was used to get him.
The law is about the suspect/fugitive.. it says nothing about the person(s) who recovered the suspect/fugitive.
I and a couple others have been trying to say this exact thing for three pages now. Good luck getting them to listen StdDev.
The US has extradition treaties with both the US and Germany.
You have a treaty with yourself?
What will happen if the US or the US breaks the Treaty? :hmm:
;)
NEON DEON
12-05-07, 03:50 PM
The US has extradition treaties with both the US and Germany.
You have a treaty with yourself?
What will happen if the US or the US breaks the Treaty? :hmm:
;)
We nuke ourselves;)
My bad should have been a "K"
Corrected.
I and a couple others have been trying to say this exact thing for three pages now. Good luck getting them to listen StdDev.
I am aware of this August... that last post of mine is actually a repeat from about page two of this cluster f*%k...
It seems as though some here believe that the US maintains an ongoing black ops dept. in charge of pissin on the sovereignty of other nations.
But hey.. I guess its tres chic to bash the US....
Skybird
12-05-07, 06:46 PM
The US has extradition treaties with both the UK and Germany.
If you are a German citizen and you commit an extraditable crime in the US and flee to Germany, then be prepared to face trial in the US or sometimes Germany.
If Germany refuses to honor the treaty, anything goes. Afterall, you broke the treaty.
:up:
A site dealing with extradition law:
http://www.internationalextraditionblog.com/firm.html
In order to brake a treaty, you must first tell your partner that there is a case, and ask him to comply. If you hide it from him, then you have no case to tell him he broke the treaty. And that is what it is about: that you honour the treaty yourself and first knock on the door before kicking it in, and not to think you must not take care of that treaty yourself.
Extradition treaties also cause problems when the partner country has a constitution that prohibits the handing over of suspects of it's own nationality. :hmm: Another limitation often is if the suspect could face death penalty in the country wanting him.
I think I ought to reiterate my original sentiment to this topic:
This thread is not about America Bashing™ as I said in the beginning - some of you ought to not be so stuck on that. :zzz:
America hapens to be the focus of the original article, yes, but I would argue the same point regardless of the nation in question. I even refered to the british taking advantage of such a loophole should they think they could get away with it.
Whilst I find the hyperbole amusing, nobody is saying america has 'special squads' on standby for the specific purpose of removing wanted foreign nationals from other countries, but you cannot deny what was stated openly in a british court: That 'extroadinary rendition' and the means of enacting this, extend not only to dealing with some seriously nasty people (as one might expect with bringing say a war criminal to trial who's sheltering in a country who's government has no diplomatic footing with, in this case, america) but to the ordinary citizens of an allied nation also!
In truth this has sod all to do with 'finger pointing' because it's 'cool to abuse america' - get over it and leave the chips at home.
The question I originally asked was can there be (outside of extreme circumstances) cases where one can say kidnapping of foreign nationals is acceptable behaviour by a nation who regards it own civil law as superseding that of other nations?
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
12-05-07, 08:13 PM
can there be (outside of extreme circumstances) cases where one can say kidnapping of foreign nationals is acceptable behaviour by a nation who regards it own civil law as superseding that of other nations?
You got the answer to that too, albeit indirectly. My vote is No, like Skybird's.
can there be (outside of extreme circumstances) cases where one can say kidnapping of foreign nationals is acceptable behaviour by a nation who regards it own civil law as superseding that of other nations?
Yup, absolutely. Nazi war criminals being the obvious example, when they were in a country that was harbouring them and preventing them from being brought to justice, snatching them was perfectly justifiable as far as I'm concerned. Not sure if I'd advocate the same kind of thing for fraudsters, although the fact that such was the example quoted, and not a murderer, does tend to point out that the law is often more concerned with going after people who commit big money crimes rather than people who knock a few fellow humans off.
:D Chock
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
12-05-07, 08:27 PM
While not disagreeing with the "a*sholeness" of a Nazi war criminal, I'd disagree here. AFAIK, the average leftover Nazi war criminal is not a current threat - they are living out the rest of their lives in secluded peace. It is thus not in extremis, and there is no justification to violate laws and the principle of sovereignty to arrest him. Remember that Hitler's disregard of sovereignty (albeit along with other factors) was the origin for the invasion of Czechslovakia, Poland, France, half of Russia ... etc.
Yup, I agree on that, I was referring to years ago - note that my post said 'when they were in a country that was harbouring them'
:D Chock
Skybird
12-05-07, 08:48 PM
can there be (outside of extreme circumstances) cases where one can say kidnapping of foreign nationals is acceptable behaviour by a nation who regards it own civil law as superseding that of other nations?
You got the answer to that too, albeit indirectly. My vote is No, like Skybird's.
ironically, I somehwat must swing onto August's line a bit when considering those "extreme circumstances", despite our latest quarrel. I referred to cases where the usual, ordinary, normal scales of jurisdiction are somewhat surpassed, by the sheer size of a crime, for example, and I mentioned Hitler and the Nazi, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung. I could add August's Bin Laden example as well. These examples are illustrating crimes on a level for which the usual rules somehow seem to be too normal indeed, too unappropriate, or - well, I do not know how to say it. August said "if you don'T like it, you always can wage war ", and somewhere else he said something like "isn't kidnapping a suspect not the better alternative to war?". He said all that in different contexts, I know, but if you slightly change that context, i think he has a point with both, although I personally would stick to a consequent line, ruling out the second quote, sticking with the first and say: if a country is shosting such people and protect them against you, you probably are not friend with that nationan anyway, and may feel free to threaten them with war if they do not hand such monsterous criminals over."
Which effectively is the story that led to the Afghanistan war.
But between that example, or the Nazis - and small everyday-criminals or managers being searched for fraud, is a difference wide as the abyss between planets. going to war over the latter is no option - nor is the violation of the sovereignity of other, friendly or neutral nations.
So, under not most extreme cicumstances, the answer to the initial question always must be No.
NEON DEON
12-05-07, 08:51 PM
The US has extradition treaties with both the UK and Germany.
If you are a German citizen and you commit an extraditable crime in the US and flee to Germany, then be prepared to face trial in the US or sometimes Germany.
If Germany refuses to honor the treaty, anything goes. Afterall, you broke the treaty.
:up:
A site dealing with extradition law:
http://www.internationalextraditionblog.com/firm.html
In order to brake a treaty, you must first tell your partner that there is a case, and ask him to comply. If you hide it from him, then you have no case to tell him he broke the treaty. And that is what it is about: that you honour the treaty yourself and first knock on the door before kicking it in, and not to think you must not take care of that treaty yourself.
Extradition treaties also cause problems when the partner country has a constitution that prohibits the handing over of suspects of it's own nationality. :hmm: Another limitation often is if the suspect could face death penalty in the country wanting him.
Then you have no business signing a treaty if it violates your constitution.:D
BTW
When did the US kidnap German citizens from Germany and bring them back to trial in the US?:hmm:
sparkomatic
12-06-07, 12:26 AM
not to step on any toes...but the Brits? C'Mon...I loved it when the Brits accused the US of "Empire" Building...now that is hypocracy (its in your freakin' name)
I thought the words read United Kingdom :hmm:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/pasquarade/wolf-38.gif
you never heard of the "British Empire"?...
So, under not most extreme cicumstances, the answer to the initial question always must be No.
Equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of our legal system. I dunno how Germany feels about this but here in the US you cannot tailor laws against individuals. There can be no exceptions for "extreme circumstances". Either everyone is potentially subject to a particular treatment or nobody is.
While this "law" may technically allow common criminals like your crooked bankers to be abducted, it would never be used on such small fry because of all the damage to international relations that it would cause when (not if) word of the abduction got out. Let alone the problems it would generate if the agents were caught (see the Gary Powers incident) by a foreign government.
What I believe this is designed to do is to make sure that if we do manage to snatch some "extraordinary" criminal from a foreign country without following strict extradition law our own courts won't force us to let him go.
Skybird
12-06-07, 06:35 AM
The US has extradition treaties with both the UK and Germany.
If you are a German citizen and you commit an extraditable crime in the US and flee to Germany, then be prepared to face trial in the US or sometimes Germany.
If Germany refuses to honor the treaty, anything goes. Afterall, you broke the treaty.
:up:
A site dealing with extradition law:
http://www.internationalextraditionblog.com/firm.html
In order to brake a treaty, you must first tell your partner that there is a case, and ask him to comply. If you hide it from him, then you have no case to tell him he broke the treaty. And that is what it is about: that you honour the treaty yourself and first knock on the door before kicking it in, and not to think you must not take care of that treaty yourself.
Extradition treaties also cause problems when the partner country has a constitution that prohibits the handing over of suspects of it's own nationality. :hmm: Another limitation often is if the suspect could face death penalty in the country wanting him.
Then you have no business signing a treaty if it violates your constitution.:D
BTW
When did the US kidnap German citizens from Germany and bring them back to trial in the US?:hmm:
The last was al Masri, two years ago. several other examples exist, from germany and other european countries. Or just consider the secret CIA flioghts inEurope, bringing suspects to torture camps, sometimes kidnapping them from European countries (lioke Al Masri), and here not only avoiding legal notice of foreign nations, but even actively avoiding one's opwn American laws.
But that is not the point. the point is a statement of a principal right one nation is claiming to have, being allowed to overrule the right and the sovereignity of any other nation in the world, at it's own will, anytime, anywhere, circumventing "partners" of legal agreements, deceiving them and leaving them in the dark, if possible.
Signing those treaties still makes sense, because they include these exceptions from the beginning and make them known to the other side. If the other side does not like these exceptions - then it is not making sense indeed to sign that treaty. This is included in article 14 of the agreement between the EU and the US on extradition. And a separate article 15 rules for mutual consultations whenever a call for extradition is being made, to clear all formal issues and remaining questions. It says nothing about secret kidnapping and ignoring this treaty. And article 17 finally admits the principal possebility that a state rejects extradition for fomal reason deriving from it's constitution, and explicitly recommends mutual consultations not between the EU and the US, but the according European coiuntry and the Us if there are other reasons to reject extradition that are not covered by this treaty or any of the constitutions.
what I find bewildering is that the treaty lists quite explicit obligations and rules for the EU, but no explicit ones for america. Statistics say that far more extraditions are made from the EU to the US, than the other way around.
The last request by germany to the US over 13 CIA agents being engaged in secret abduction operations in Germany were shot down.
Skybird
12-06-07, 06:41 AM
So, under not most extreme cicumstances, the answer to the initial question always must be No.
Equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of our legal system. I dunno how Germany feels about this but here in the US you cannot tailor laws against individuals. There can be no exceptions for "extreme circumstances". Either everyone is potentially subject to a particular treatment or nobody is.
While this "law" may technically allow common criminals like your crooked bankers to be abducted, it would never be used on such small fry because of all the damage to international relations that it would cause when (not if) word of the abduction got out. Let alone the problems it would generate if the agents were caught (see the Gary Powers incident) by a foreign government.
What I believe this is designed to do is to make sure that if we do manage to snatch some "extraordinary" criminal from a foreign country without following strict extradition law our own courts won't force us to let him go.
then my answer would be NO even with regard to most serious circumstances, and barbars like in the examples I listed: Hitler, etc. Because the American demand to be the judge of all world and being free to overrule any other nation's law and sovereignity at will is totally unacceptable - for principal reasons as well as for America not being in the moral position to ride the high horse, too.
TteFAboB
12-06-07, 07:55 AM
So if this is an American exception, does that mean that you can commit any crime you want in a country you have no citizenship for and get away with it as long as you leave and re-enter the country illegally?
Jimbuna
12-06-07, 08:02 AM
This thread is now starting to confuse the hell outa me :doh:
:damn:
Mush Martin
12-06-07, 08:29 AM
If they want you they will come and get you
dont believe me ask Manuel Noriega.
The main difficulty is that america sees itself
through a distorted lens
in general the impression I get from the many
americans I have known and met over a lifetime
two miles from the border is this
they seem in general (excepting their true critical thinkers)
to feel that the world view of america should be the same
as their view of themselves.
well in this of course they dont percieve other cultures
distinctions. if you say im a canadian and I am critical of
the U.S. they will point to those parts of american culture
we have adopted and say your opinions not relevant you
want to be us.
which in general we dont.
I saw a USMC pilot in the first Gulf War who after a mission
came down and to the reporter said "its a great day.
I am proud to be an american over here to free these people
in the interest of the USA oh and by the way the worlds too.
they are noble sentiments and the USMC offers the best of
the american military but this fellows statement struck me
not for its patriotic nobility but for the supposition that his
interests and mine were the same.
we all see what we want to see and they will see it their way.
but might has always made right
Sancho Panza maybe.
(Sancho Panza steals my chickens Teddy Roosevelt steals my chickens
what do I care who is in charge)
I love the interview with Tariq Aziz on CNN during the first gulf
war where he says
" I have no doubt that you people can bomb my country to
dust tommorow but my country has been here ten thousand
years and it will still be here a thousand years from now."
the implication being that you may change to government their
but you cant change that they are a people or nation
borders change governements change policies change
but weve been willing to go over the border and pre emptively
defend ourselves since before the carthiginians.
the simple truth is that what causes this smugness and self justified
behaviour is the knowledge that we have the power to do so with
relative impunity. Once we find ourselves in that position we are all
tempted.
power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately.
who wouldnt if they had the power of relative impunity wouldnt use
it to make america behave better
so I ask are we really different men here in the future.
and inspite of the real cultural and national differences
are we different than they or any in this respect.
M:|\\
Skybird
12-06-07, 08:43 AM
I like that posting, Mush Martin. :up:
Jimbuna
12-06-07, 09:18 AM
Well put Maerin :rock: :up:
Tchocky
12-06-07, 09:22 AM
so I ask are we really different men here in the future.
and inspite of the real cultural and national differences
are we different than they or any in this respect.
Some stay dry and others feel the pain.
(dum dum, dum dum dum, dum dum dum dum dum)
American demand to be the judge of all world and being free to overrule any other nation's law and sovereignity at will
This is a lie Skybird. I thought you were above posting deliberate falsehoods. Guess I was wrong.
Skybird
12-06-07, 12:12 PM
In a way, you are the liar, August, because you deliberately ignore the context of my posting and by that twist it'S meaning, although I am absolutely sure that you are knowing that the whole post where you ripped it from has been adressing the issue of this thread: the inherent claim by america that it has the right to overrule the sovereignity and laws of foreign nations, ullustrated in the story that the thread starter told at the start.
Is it so difficult for you to discuss something without trying again and again some rethoric tricks on people not agreeing with you, to give them a bad name where your argument is not sufficient to counter theirs? I'm getting tired of it, really. It is foul style. Lacking sportsmanhsip, if you want. Unfairness. However you call it.
You could try this until next year, but still you will not prevent me from countering your self-centered claims concerning the moral validity of america's self-perceptiin when behaving like being discussed in this thread. All you illustrate to people by that is that you arguments are not sufficient, so that you need to use rethoric cheats and tricks. there are people claiming rethoric to be a high art, and they even train it, but to me it is just an attempt to manipulate people, and deceive over lacking argument. It does not impress me at all. You either have an argument where I can see the point in it, or you have not - that is all.
In a way, you are the liar, August, because you deliberately ignore the context of my posting and by that twist it'S meaning, although I am absolutely sure that you are knowing that the whole post where you ripped it from has been adressing the issue of this thread: the inherent claim by america that it has the right to overrule the sovereignity and laws of foreign nations, ullustrated in the story that the thread starter told at the start.
Is it so difficult for you to discuss something without trying again and again some rethoric tricks on people not agreeing with you, to give them a bad name where your argument is not sufficient to counter theirs? I'm getting tired of it, really. It is foul style. Lacking sportsmanhsip, if you want. Unfairness. However you call it.
You could try this until next year, but still you will not prevent me from countering your self-centered claims concerning the moral validity of america's self-perceptiin when behaving like being discussed in this thread. All you illustrate to people by that is that you arguments are not sufficient, so that you need to use rethoric cheats and tricks. there are people claiming rethoric to be a high art, and they even train it, but to me it is just an attempt to manipulate people, and deceive over lacking argument. It does not impress me at all. You either have an argument where I can see the point in it, or you have not - that is all.
Oh that's complete bull Skybird. Your penchant for insulting my country, it's government and it's people is well known on these boards and judging by the many PMs I get about you a lot of people are also getting fed up with it.
"American demand to be the judge of all world and being free to overrule any other nation's law and sovereignity at will"
Now either prove what you said or admit you are deliberately making false accusations in order to bolster your arguments.
Skybird
12-06-07, 01:10 PM
I'm tired of your distortions and false accusations about me, and your total inability to stay focussed on the original content of this thread or the contexts of my postings), and the example in the starting story. I suggest you exchange some more PMs with your friends.
You strongly give the impression of being unable to bear any criticism of your country at all, and labelling that as anti-americanism completely, always. and by that you are the living clue why worldwide so many people have such a critical view our your nation'S self-perception. you think yo are the knights of the holy grail. But you aren't. You are just one nation amongst many others, with light and shadow, like many others.
that you probabaly do not reflect on with your friends in your PMs. more likely that you all spend time clapping each other's shoulders.
By
- ignoring the sovereignity of other nations, and their laws,
- and by ignoring the treaties of extradition which the US has signed with the EU, and other nations, and agreed upon,
- by claiming instead the right to secretely kidnapp suspects from foreign countries, friendlies, neutrals and hostile alike,
the United states demand to be the judge of all world and being free to overrule any other nation's law and sovereignity at will indeed. Get this into your brain, August, it is not too difficult to understand the linking, as long as one has not replaced brain with dogmatism. It is a disgrace for your nation's historic ethical claims, and it is the truth of what was to be discussed here. Close your eyes, and keep on imagining that America is not what it is today, and does not do what it does, and means it always different, and is only light, no shadow. But the reality will stay unaltered by your imgination. In other words: make your choice between fantasy, and realism. But you already have, and in favour of the first.
Our little tete-a-tete ends exactly here.
waste gate
12-06-07, 01:37 PM
I'm tired of your distortions and false accusations about me, and your total inability to stay focussed on the original content of this thread or the contexts of my postings), and the example in the starting story. I suggest you exchange some more PMs with your friends.
You strongly give the impression of being unable to bear any criticism of your country at all, and labelling that as anti-americanism completely, always. and by that you are the living clue why worldwide so many people have such a critical view our your nation'S self-perception. you think yo are the knights of the holy grail. But you aren't. You are just one nation amongst many others, with light and shadow, like many others.
that you probabaly do not reflect on with your friends in your PMs. more likely that you all spend time clapping each other's shoulders.
By
- ignoring the sovereignity of other nations, and their laws,
- and by ignoring the treaties of extradition which the US has signed with the EU, and other nations, and agreed upon,
- by claiming instead the right to secretely kidnapp suspects from foreign countries, friendlies, neutrals and hostile alike,
the United states demand to be the judge of all world and being free to overrule any other nation's law and sovereignity at will indeed. Get this into your brain, August, it is not too difficult to understand the linking, as long as one has not replaced brain with dogmatism. It is a disgrace for your nation's historic ethical claims, and it is the truth of what was to be discussed here. Close your eyes, and keep on imagining that America is not what it is today, and does not do what it does, and means it always different, and is only light, no shadow. But the reality will stay unaltered by your imgination. In other words: make your choice between fantasy, and realism. But you already have, and in favour of the first.
Our little tete-a-tete ends exactly here.
For a moment I thought Skybird was addressing me. It sure sounded familiar.;)
the United states demand to be the judge of all world and being free to overrule any other nation's law and sovereignity at will indeed.
You can repeat it over and over but it is still a lie Skybird. Never has my country demanded to be the "judge of all the world" and as the op link very clearly shows still observes extradition law, so we can hardly be demanding the freedom "to overrule any nations law and sovereignity at will".
Skybird
12-06-07, 03:59 PM
Quote in context, cheater.
Konovalov
12-06-07, 04:06 PM
Why don't you guys just darned well grow up and all walk away from this seemingly futile and stupid debate that it has become. As is almost always the case neither side is willing to give an inch. Just walk away because it is starting to look really silly with all the name calling of liar, cheat, anti-american bla bla bla. :down:
Why don't you guys just darned well grow up and all walk away from this seemingly futile and stupid debate that it has become. As is almost always the case neither side is willing to give an inch. Just walk away because it is starting to look really silly with all the name calling of liar, cheat, anti-american bla bla bla. :down:
I have to say that is good advice. :yep:
Nothing wrong in walking away. ;)
Skybird
12-06-07, 04:14 PM
Can't argue with you guys, it's best advise.
Why don't you guys just darned well grow up and all walk away from this seemingly futile and stupid debate that it has become. As is almost always the case neither side is willing to give an inch. Just walk away because it is starting to look really silly with all the name calling of liar, cheat, anti-american bla bla bla. :down:
I have to say that is good advice. :yep:
Nothing wrong in walking away. ;)
Waitaminit.....
I was gunna remark on Konovalov's directive to maintain peace...
Another example of the UK imposing its will on the sovereignty of flame war participants....
Who do you think you are Konovalov?... the US? ;)
Konovalov
12-06-07, 04:21 PM
Waitaminit.....
I was gunna remark on Konovalov's directive to maintain peace...
Another example of the UK imposing its will on the sovereignty of flame war participants....
Who do you think you are Konovalov?... the US? ;)
:rotfl: :rotfl:
Actually I'm a Australian citizen living in the UK but that was darned funny. :up:
Actually I'm a Australian citizen living in the UK
It's true. This Konovalov feller has been hanging around Lords cricket ground just waiting for the opportunity to liberate the Ashes and return them to Australia.
I got my eye on you young chap. :stare: :lol:
Skybird
12-06-07, 04:27 PM
Waitaminit.....
I was gunna remark on Konovalov's directive to maintain peace...
Another example of the UK imposing its will on the sovereignty of flame war participants....
Who do you think you are Konovalov?... the US? ;)
:rotfl: :rotfl:
Actually I'm a Australian citizen living in the UK but that was darned funny. :up:
He's a mercenary, that means. ;)
Konovalov
12-06-07, 04:29 PM
Actually I'm a Australian citizen living in the UK
It's true. This Konovalov feller has been hanging around Lords cricket ground just waiting for the opportunity to liberate the Ashes and return them to Australia.
I got my eye on you young chap. :stare: :lol:
:damn: :damn: I guess we will just have to put up with that replica one. :D
Now look what you've made me do. I've hijacked the thread. :lol:
Actually I'm a Australian citizen living in the UK but that was darned funny. :up:
So.. do those limeys make fun of your accent too? :)
Takeda Shingen
12-06-07, 04:44 PM
Alright, now that we have our round of name calling completed, it appears to be time to send this one to the bottom.
The Management
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.