Should the world be subject to US law?

[CRGreathouse]

This thread is to avoid further derailing the Assange thread. Claims have been made there regarding the possibility that a non-US citizen not living in the US is (1) subject to US law, and (2) can be extradited for violations of same, when their actions are not violations of local law.

Although I would not mind having such claims made on this thread (better here than off-topic on the other thread; but please, only with references), the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether this should be possible. Also, generalizations would be of interest: what other countries would have the same answer when their names replace "US" in the question? At first blush the same answer would apply to all, but on reflection perhaps countries like the DPRK would not be the same, or (on the other hand) perhaps states subject to compulsory ICJ jurisdiction would differ.

 

[Evo]

Foreign nationals engaged in spying, espionage, terrorism, anything done to hurt the US or it's citizens certainly are subject to being pursued as criminals. This doesn't mean that US law applies carte blanche to other countries. Of course I am assuming you are only referring to foreign nationals that have commited crimes against the US, because that's the only instance that would apply, no?

Is there some instance where the US has tried to prosecute foreign nationals that were not considered to have commited crimes against the US? Please post these, I'm interested to see them.

As far as extradition, we do turn over people that have broken the laws of other countries if we have extradition agreements with them.

 

[russ_watters]

You should probably broaden this to be about any country and it's laws applying outside its territory and extradition for violating them.

Lets start with an easy one: Piracy. Piracy is an act committed outside the borders of the country it is committed against by people who have never set foot inside those countries, much less made any indication they are willing to adhere to their laws. So: should piracy have international reach? If not, how should it be dealt with? This question is currently being answered in the affirmative in Germany, France and the US (that I know of - I only did a quick google). Note, the extradition question doesn't apply here - the two questions are somewhat separate. [edit: thoght the pirates in the German incident were captured by the Dutch...]

 

[JaredJames]

Well I look at the current extradition case in the UK regarding the guy who hacked the pentagon looking for aliens.

My question is, is it illegal in the UK to hack the pentagon? What UK laws were broken?

In my opinion, he attacked the US and broke their laws. He should be tried by the US law and prosecuted by them. All these people trying to stop him being extradited are yet to give a satisfactory argument as far as I'm concerned as to why he shouldn't be.

The UK is currently going to extradite him to the US for trial. I am under the impression that if the crime is against the US, regardless of which country you are from, you are subject to be prosecuted by the US (subject to US law).

 

[NeoDevin]

In my opinion, as stated in the other thread, extradition should only be possible when the offense in question occurred within the jurisdiction of the requesting country. For many extradition treaties, (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/CriminalLaw/LawArticle-99/Extradition-Law--Canada.aspx" for example) this is, in fact, required. Others, such as (as near as I can tell) the UK or Sweden treaties with the US, do not have this requirement.

The question of whether or not an individual should be able to be extradited when the offense in question is not a crime locally is a little more of a grey area for me (provided the offense was committed in the jurisdiction of the requesting country). This is commonly known as a "dual-criminality" requirement for extradition. On the one hand, I think you should have to respect the laws of the country you are in, even when they differ from your own, and should be held accountable as such. In that sense, I am opposed to the requirement of dual-criminality. On the other hand, some countries have some laws/practices which are violations of human rights in another country (freedom of speech, for example). In that sense, I support the requirement of dual-criminality.

I suppose as long as being prosecuted for the offense in question would not be a violation of the basic rights of the individual, I am opposed to the dual-criminality requirement. If you commit a crime while in another country, they should be able to hold you accountable. When you enter the country, you are (implicitly or explicitly) agreeing to abide by their laws.

 

[JaredJames]

So what you're saying Neo, is I can commit any crime I like against the US but as long as I'm not under their jurisdiction (within their borders) they can't do sod all about it?

There's something not right with that.

 

[russ_watters]

My question is, is it illegal in the UK to hack the pentagon? What UK laws were broken?

Probably not. The laws of a country only apply to acts committed against that country/its citizens. But that's not what matters: what matters for extradition is if it's a crime in the UK to hack the UK's defense ministry.

 

[NeoDevin]

Well I look at the current extradition case in the UK regarding the guy who hacked the pentagon looking for aliens.

My question is, is it illegal in the UK to hack the pentagon? What UK laws were broken?

In my opinion, he attacked the US and broke their laws. He should be tried by the US law and prosecuted by them. All these people trying to stop him being extradited are yet to give a satisfactory argument as far as I'm concerned as to why he shouldn't be.

The UK is currently going to extradite him to the US for trial. I am under the impression that if the crime is against the US, regardless of which country you are from, you are subject to be prosecuted by the US (subject to US law).

My understanding of that case was that unauthorized access to a computer system (hacking) is illegal in the UK as well as the US. In this case, it was a question of whether to try him in the UK, where he was physically located, or in the US, where all the evidence and damage was. This case differs from Assange's in that Assange never (as far as we know) hacked into the systems himself.

 

[NeoDevin]

So what you're saying Neo, is I can commit any crime I like against the US but as long as I'm not under their jurisdiction (within their borders) they can't do sod all about it?

There's something not right with that.

As long as your actions are not in violation of the laws of the country you live in, yes.

 

[turbo]

This thread is to avoid further derailing the Assange thread. Claims have been made there regarding the possibility that a non-US citizen not living in the US is (1) subject to US law, and (2) can be extradited for violations of same, when their actions are not violations of local law.

Although I would not mind having such claims made on this thread (better here than off-topic on the other thread; but please, only with references), the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether this should be possible. Also, generalizations would be of interest: what other countries would have the same answer when their names replace "US" in the question? At first blush the same answer would apply to all, but on reflection perhaps countries like the DPRK would not be the same, or (on the other hand) perhaps states subject to compulsory ICJ jurisdiction would differ.

I won't go much further than this, but I thank you for bringing this up CRG. Should women accused of infidelity or adultery all around the world be subject to extradition and execution if Iran's government wants them to be executed by stoning? Are we that numb to the implications and the possible outcomes?

Even if they are not Iranians?

 

[russ_watters]

In my opinion, as stated in the other thread, extradition should only be possible when the offense in question occurred within the jurisdiction of the requesting country. For many extradition treaties, (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/CriminalLaw/LawArticle-99/Extradition-Law--Canada.aspx" for example) this is, in fact, required. Others, such as (as near as I can tell) the UK or Sweden treaties with the US, do not have this requirement. For a country to willingly hand over their own citizens/residents for punishment who have done nothing in violation of the laws of that country seems ridiculous to me.[emphasis added]

That's very odd - the last part doesn't have anything to do with the first part and is in fact in direct conflict with the entire point of the issue! The entire reason you extradite someone is for a crime committed in/against another country. Of course the laws of the country doing the extraditing haven't been violated - otherwise the trial would be in that country!

 

[Evo]

My question is, is it illegal in the UK to hack the pentagon? What UK laws were broken?

Is the UK trying to prosecute him? I don't think so. He commited a crime against the US, so it is the US that is pursuing him.

Reverse this, an American citizen residing in the US hacks UK military computers, has he broken US law or UK law? Why is this even a question? I thought this was pretty basic stuff, I'm amazed that so many people have no knowledge of international law. Not you jared, you showed in your post that you understand.

Edit: nevermind, Russ summed it up above.

 

[russ_watters]

My understanding of that case was that unauthorized access to a computer system (hacking) is illegal in the UK as well as the US. In this case, it was a question of whether to try him in the UK, where he was physically located, or in the US, where all the evidence and damage was. This case differs from Assange's in that Assange never (as far as we know) hacked into the systems himself.

As long as your actions are not in violation of the laws of the country you live in, yes.

You're setting up a self-reinforcing piece of bad logic there. You can only be violating the laws of one country at a time with a single act committed against a single entity.

So let's give a specific example: I'm an American and I've never been to Belgium. Should it be legal for me to hack a Belgian bank and steal a billion dollars? Seems absurd, but that's what you are implying.

 

[NeoDevin]

That's very odd - the last part doesn't have anything to do with the first part and is in fact in direct conflict with the entire point of the issue! The entire reason you extradite someone is for a crime committed in/against another country. Of course the laws of the country doing the extraditing haven't been violated - otherwise the trial would be in that country!

Sorry, that sentence wasn't meant to be there (I was originally going to say something else, then changed my mind and found a better way to phrase it). I am editting it out now.

 

[talk2glenn]

This thread is to avoid further derailing the Assange thread. Claims have been made there regarding the possibility that a non-US citizen not living in the US is (1) subject to US law, and (2) can be extradited for violations of same, when their actions are not violations of local law.

The documents stolen by Wikileaks were American property, stolen from American computers, on American soil. This establishes jurisdiction. That the person (or some of the persons) committing the crime wasn't in the United Sates at the time doesn't exonerate him.

The context of jurisction is where the crime was committed, not where the perpetrator was. This might seem silly, but bear with me. Imagine I plant a remote controlled bomb on a New York city subway, and detonate it from New Jersey. Can I be charged by the state of New York, and extradited by New Jersey? Or am I above the law because I wasn't "under New York's jurisdiction" when the bomb went off? Imagine for a moment that no federal crimes were committed, or if you prefer, move the actor to Canada instead of New Jersey. If you grant the point in the case of a bomber, you must grant it in the case of a thief, or a spy, or whatever.

It would be a rather silly precedent indeed if the concept of jurisdiction were based on where you were when the crime occurred. Osama Bin Laden wasn't in the United States or anywhere near its sovreign territory when any of the events he orchestrated unfolded, but he has still been indicted in the US for numerous offenses, and has also been indicted in Libya for separate crimes.

This is quite routine and quite clear.

 

[NeoDevin]

You're setting up a self-reinforcing piece of bad logic there. You can only be violating the laws of one country at a time with a single act committed against a single entity.

I disagree. Take the hacking case mentioned earlier in the thread. Hacking is against the law in the UK, as well as the US. The hacker broke the law in the UK, and in my opinion, should be punished according to the UK law, despite the fact that the "victim" of the crime was outside the UK.

 

[turbo]

Is the UK trying to prosecute him? I don't think so. He commited a crime against the US, so it is the US that is pursuing him.

Reverse this, an American citizen residing in the US hacks UK military computers, has he broken US law or UK law? Why is this even a question? I thought this was pretty basic stuff, I'm amazed that so many people have no knowledge of international law. Not you jared, you showed in your post that you understand.

He has also exposed the fact that Libya threatened retribution if the bomber was not repatriated. And that the British government was complicit in the negotiations. "Not negotiating with terrorists" sounds really tough and good. It plays well in the press.

 

[NeoDevin]

The context of jurisction is where the crime was committed, not where the perpetrator was. This might seem silly, but bear with me. Imagine I plant a remote controlled bomb on a New York city subway, and detonate it from New Jersey. Can I be charged by the state of New York, and extradited by New Jersey? Or am I above the law because I wasn't "under New York's jurisdiction" when the bomb went off? Imagine for a moment that no federal crimes were committed, or if you prefer, move the actor to Canada instead of New Jersey. If you grant the point in the case of a bomber, you must grant it in the case of a thief, or a spy, or whatever.

Building (I think) and planting (I'm reasonably certain) the bomb are both illegal in NYC. Detonating the bomb is illegal in NYC, NJ, and Canada. In my mind you should be charged for the detonation/murder in Canada, and/or extradited to the US to face explosives making/planting charges there.

 

[Evo]

I may be mistaken but I think what NeoDevin was trying to say is that some countries will only extradite if the offense is a crime in both countries. But then it gets technical, is endangering national security a crime in both countries? The answer is most likely *yes*. I don't know of any countries that do not have laws against this.

 

[JaredJames]

Why is this even a question?

Exactly, it's not a question.

Neo, how would the world survive if I could commit a crime in one country against another and simply get away with it? By these standards, if the UK made biological weapons legal and the I personally deployed them against another country, there would be absolutely nothing that country could do to prosecute me.

 

[NeoDevin]

Reverse this, an American citizen residing in the US hacks UK military computers, has he broken US law or UK law? Why is this even a question? I thought this was pretty basic stuff, I'm amazed that so many people have no knowledge of international law. Not you jared, you showed in your post that you understand.

I believe the US has anti-hacking laws as well (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not that familiar with US law). His actions would therefore be in violation of US law.

 

[NeoDevin]

I may be mistaken but I think what NeoDevin was trying to say is that some countries will only extradite if the offense is a crime in both countries. But then it gets technical, is endangering national security a crime in both countries? The answer is most likely *yes*. I don't know of any countries that do not have laws against this.

If the question is instead: "Is endangering the national security of the US against the law in Canada/UK/Sweden/etc.?" The answer is a little more vague. Many nations have laws respecting "actions likely to result in injury or death to other individuals" or something similar, which may apply. The requirement is not generally that the crime be the same in both countries, but simply that the action would have been illegal had it been committed in either country.

 

[Evo]

He has also exposed the fact that Libya threatened retribution if the bomber was not repatriated. And that the British government was complicit in the negotiations. "Not negotiating with terrorists" sounds really tough and good. It plays well in the press.

The person is Gary McKinnon, did you think it was Assange?

 

[NeoDevin]

Neo, how would the world survive if I could commit a crime in one country against another and simply get away with it? By these standards, if the UK made biological weapons legal and the I personally deployed them against another country, there would be absolutely nothing that country could do to prosecute me.

Your hypothetical further requires the assumption that UK legalizes murder as well, or at least the use of biological weapons against individuals, which is a ridiculous assumption.

However, to play along:
If the UK made biological weapons legal there would be immense economic pressure for them to reverse the decision. If someone in the UK were to actually deploy a biological weapon against another state, and the UK did not attempt to prevent it or punish the perpetrator, this should be seen as official sanction of the attack, and the act of war that it is.

 

[WhoWee]

This thread is to avoid further derailing the Assange thread. Claims have been made there regarding the possibility that a non-US citizen not living in the US is (1) subject to US law, and (2) can be extradited for violations of same, when their actions are not violations of local law.

Although I would not mind having such claims made on this thread (better here than off-topic on the other thread; but please, only with references), the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether this should be possible. Also, generalizations would be of interest: what other countries would have the same answer when their names replace "US" in the question? At first blush the same answer would apply to all, but on reflection perhaps countries like the DPRK would not be the same, or (on the other hand) perhaps states subject to compulsory ICJ jurisdiction would differ.

In the context of the US, I think it's important to differentiate between matters of national security and criminal (or even civil) matters.

As everyone knows, there is an on-going debate in the US over where and how to prosecute terror suspects - basically Military tribunal at Gitmo or a Federal court in the States. I think this debate weakens the US ability to prosecute any such (OP) situation.

 

[NeoDevin]

Another (ridiculous) hypothetical: Suppose the US becomes a theocracy with some fundamentalist denomination of Christianity in charge. This church then declares that the teaching of evolution is a threat to national security, since it would promote mistrust in the church and therefore the state. Should the US be able to extradite all biology teachers around the world in this situation?

 

[NeoDevin]

In the context of the US, I think it's important to differentiate between matters of national security and criminal (or even civil) matters.

I disagree. Matters of national security should be addressed by the relevant portions of the criminal code (or equivalent US document).

 

[russ_watters]

I disagree. Take the hacking case mentioned earlier in the thread. Hacking is against the law in the UK, as well as the US. The hacker broke the law in the UK, and in my opinion, should be punished according to the UK law, despite the fact that the "victim" of the crime was outside the UK.

You can disagree all you like, but you're disagreeing with reality by applying awful logic to justify it!

The purpose of government (yes, we're getting that basic!) is to protec the citizens of the country governed by that government. Why would the UK bother wasting its resources prosecuting such a person? Again, that's the whole point of extradition!

A thought example: imagine a German travels to the US, commits murder, and travels back to Germany where he's arrested for jaywalking. The German's know the Americans consider him a prime suspect in a murder in the US. Should the Germans send a CSI team and prosecutors to the US to investigate the murder for prosecution in Germany? Of course not, that would be silly: they send the German to the US for prosecution!

Moreover, for the UK to investigate the crime that is the subject of this thread would require the US government/military to hand over to the UK details of the breach and transfer of the information to Wikileaks. You think that's reasonable?

 

[WhoWee]

Another (ridiculous) hypothetical: Suppose the US becomes a theocracy with some fundamentalist denomination of Christianity in charge. This church then declares that the teaching of evolution is a threat to national security, since it would promote mistrust in the church and therefore the state. Should the US be able to extradite all biology teachers around the world in this situation?

Only if the specified punishment is a one way ticket to Mars (see other thread).

 

[NeoDevin]

Another (ridiculous) hypothetical: Suppose the US becomes a theocracy with some fundamentalist denomination of Christianity in charge. This church then declares that the teaching of evolution is a threat to national security, since it would promote mistrust in the church and therefore the state. Should the US be able to extradite all biology teachers around the world in this situation?

We can even make this hypothetical more realistic: Suppose that the UK were to outlaw the publication of bomb-making instructions online (who knows, have they already done that?), as a matter of national security. In the US, publication of such instructions is completely legal. Should the UK be able to extradite anyone from the US who publishes a chemistry book on demolition? How about someone who publishes online about how to make explosives from everyday chemicals?

 

[WhoWee]

I disagree. Matters of national security should be addressed by the relevant portions of the criminal code (or equivalent US document).

Sometimes we address national security issues with special forces - not real worried about search warrants and the like - there is a difference and varies by degrees of urgency.

 

[russ_watters]

Another (ridiculous) hypothetical: Suppose the US becomes a theocracy with some fundamentalist denomination of Christianity in charge. This church then declares that the teaching of evolution is a threat to national security, since it would promote mistrust in the church and therefore the state. Should the US be able to extradite all biology teachers around the world in this situation?

You're having so much trouble dealing with real situations, I don't think it's a good idea to try to discuss ridiculous hypotheticals.

 

[JaredJames]

Another (ridiculous) hypothetical: Suppose the US becomes a theocracy with some fundamentalist denomination of Christianity in charge. This church then declares that the teaching of evolution is a threat to national security, since it would promote mistrust in the church and therefore the state. Should the US be able to extradite all biology teachers around the world in this situation?

The worldwide biology teachers have not committed a crime against the US. I don't think you're making that distinction here.

To be subject to US law, you have to attack the US or it's citizens.

We can even make this hypothetical more realistic: Suppose that the UK were to outlaw the publication of bomb-making instructions online (who knows, have they already done that?), as a matter of national security. In the US, publication of such instructions is completely legal. Should the UK be able to extradite anyone from the US who publishes a chemistry book on demolition? How about someone who publishes online about how to make explosives from everyday chemicals?

Again, they have committed no crime against the UK. Why can you not get this distinction?

 

[russ_watters]

We skipped-over the jurisdiction part of the issue: do you at least acknowledge that a country can have jurisdiction if it decides it wants to and then the only question is if it can get its hands on the defendant (by extradition or other means such as capturing on the open ocean)?

 

[NeoDevin]

A thought example: imagine a German travels to the US, commits murder, and travels back to Germany where he's arrested for jaywalking. The German's know the Americans consider him a prime suspect in a murder in the US. Should the Germans send a CSI team and prosecutors to the US to investigate the murder for prosecution in Germany? Of course not, that would be silly: they send the German to the US for prosecution!

In that case the crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the US, and I agree with you completely as per my previous posts.

Moreover, for the UK to investigate the crime that is the subject of this thread would require the US government/military to hand over to the UK details of the breach and transfer of the information to Wikileaks. You think that's reasonable?

No I don't. But as I proposed in the other thread, I don't think that anything Assange has done has violated UK law. Had Assange hacked into the computer himself, he would be in violation of UK law, and then you would have a case.