News Should the world be subject to US law?

[NeoDevin]

It is confined to crimes committed outside a nation’s territory against its “security, territorial integrity or political independence.”46 As construed by the courts, however, it is understood to permit the application abroad of statutes which protect the federal government and its functions.47 And so, it covers the overseas murder or attempted murder of federal officers or those thought to be federal officers;48 acts of terrorism calculated to influence American foreign policy;49 conduct which Congress has characterized as a threat to U.S. national security;50 or false statements or forgery designed to frustrate the administration of U.S. our immigration laws. [emphasis mine]

Each of the bolded sections above suggest that it is basically up to the American government what laws they expect to enforce abroad. Hence, my characterization of your argument as: "The US can decide to punish anyone anywhere in the world, for anything the US doesn't like."

What the US can do, as has been posted previously, is dependent on if the person of interest enters the US or is extradited to the US.

And I'm arguing for sensible extradition policies for other nations, rather than capitulating to US political and economic pressures. My point all along has been that the US cannot (should not) simply be allowed to arbitrarily enforce its laws on other nations.

 

[NeoDevin]

To everyone arguing against me:

Hypothetically, if the US asks for extradition of Assange (from either UK or Sweden) and after all the local extradition hearings are carried out, along with all appeals, and it is determined that they cannot/will not extradite Assange to the US, for whatever reasons, what do you think the US response should be?

 

[Mathnomalous]

Should the world be subject to US law? Yes, as long as the US has the money and guns to push its weight around. When that ceases to be the case, the world will be subject to the next powerful country's law.

 

[NeoDevin]

Should the world be subject to US law? Yes, as long as the US has the money and guns to push its weight around. When that ceases to be the case, the world will be subject to the next powerful country's law.

So if/when China takes over as the leading superpower, we should all just submit?

 

[nismaratwork]

So your argument basically amounts to: "The US can decide to punish anyone anywhere in the world, for anything the US doesn't like."

And you expect the rest of the world to go along with this?

Actually, the key here is: DECIDE to punish. That doesn't mean we'll GET to them, but yeah, just like a person can decide to kill a random person a nation can decide to attempt diplomatic channels to get that person. Naturally the system is more likely to produce a successful result ig the reasons are better than, "this is some random dick", and more along the lines of a negotiation.

Look at Iran, they're holding people for espionage (read: hiking).

So... you're conflating the issues of how a nation decides to extradite, and what it is that gets others to go along with it, or not.

Remember, the country you're trying to get Assange from today may be the country that wants an Assange from you tomorrow. That IS how international politics works you know... no one claimed this was some terribly fair process.

 

[nismaratwork]

So if/when China takes over as the leading superpower, we should all just submit?

Has China submitted to us? Hardly. I wouldn't expect the opposite to the be the case either... don't make absurd straw men.

 

[NeoDevin]

Has China submitted to us? Hardly. I wouldn't expect the opposite to the be the case either... don't make absurd straw men.

By "we" I meant those of us Mathnomalous currently expects to submit to the current superiority of money and guns of the US.

 

[nismaratwork]

By "we" I meant those of us Mathnomalous currently expects to submit to the current superiority of money and guns of the US.

...And inasmuch as the world does submit to the USA as a result of "money and guns" (a little more complex), yeah, just as Mathnomolous said in his original post: we're up for now, but someone else will be next. Did you miss that?

Edit... it was last page... Mathnom said: "When that ceases to be the case, the world will be subject to the next powerful country's law."

Um... he seems to have already answered your question before you asked it.

 

[NeoDevin]

Actually, the key here is: DECIDE to punish. That doesn't mean we'll GET to them, but yeah, just like a person can decide to kill a random person a nation can decide to attempt diplomatic channels to get that person. Naturally the system is more likely to produce a successful result ig the reasons are better than, "this is some random dick", and more along the lines of a negotiation.

Look at Iran, they're holding people for espionage (read: hiking).

So... you're conflating the issues of how a nation decides to extradite, and what it is that gets others to go along with it, or not.

From the OP:

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.

I've been focusing mostly on point (2). While everyone else here seems to be stuck on point (1). Since point (2) is the one that determines who can actually be physically punished, it seemed like the more worthwhile topic.

 

[nismaratwork]

From the OP:



I've been focusing mostly on point (2). While everyone else here seems to be stuck on point (1). Since point (2) is the one that determines who can actually be physically punished, it seemed like the more worthwhile topic.

International extradition of high-value individuals isn't that simple... it's a negotiation. If the USA wants him from Sweden, then Sweden would be mad to agree without demanding promises in return. It may be that pleasing their populace would be more important that political gain, or they right refuse extradition, but also refuse residency.

Ignoring Assange, the USA and other countries don't have an INTEREST in enforcing their laws outside of their borders. Trying to do that, is a fancy way of describing a declaration of war. What is said, what is exchanged through mutual consent regardless of law... that's fine... that's not SUBJECT to anything. You're subject to a people or law when their laws dictate how you live your life.

 

[nismaratwork]

Reframed... The UK grants Assange bail, but Sweden objects, and Assange remains in jail. The USA isn't involved, and Sweden is hardly holding a knife to Great Britain's throat. I'm not sure that part 2 as defined by NeoDevin relates whatsoever to the premise articulated in the title of this thread.

Oh yes, the article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/14/uk.assange.hearing/index.html

 

[Evo]

Reframed... The UK grants Assange bail, but Sweden objects, and Assange remains in jail. The USA isn't involved, and Sweden is hardly holding a knife to Great Britain's throat. I'm not sure that part 2 as defined by NeoDevin relates whatsoever to the premise articulated in the title of this thread.

Oh yes, the article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/14/uk.assange.hearing/index.html

Love how the UK caves so quickly to pressure. "oh no, they might hack into our computers, got to set him free". Just like they caved to pressure to release the Lockerbie bomber.

Aha, I see this morning's articles where it was cited that the UK felt compelled to release Assange due to fears of a risk from hackers to UK National Security have been edited out.

Here we go

UK warns over threat of cyber attacks by pro-WikiLeaks hackers against government websites

LONDON - Britain's national security adviser has warned that government websites are at risk of cyber attack from pro-WikiLeaks hackers, prime minister David Cameron's office said Monday.

Ministries have been told they could be targeted by online "hacktivists," following attacks on companies including MasterCard Inc., Visa Inc. and PayPal Inc., which cut ties to the WikiLeaks site.

Cameron's office said security adviser Peter Ricketts has raised his concerns before an extradition hearing scheduled for Tuesday, when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will appear at a London court.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/britain-warns-pro-wikileaks-attacks-government-websites-20101213-054151-243.html

Another headline erased

Dec 14, 2010 ... Britain's national security adviser said Monday that U.K. government websites could be attacked in retribution if Assange is not released

 

[JaredJames]

Love how the UK caves so quickly to pressure. "oh no, they might hack into our computers, got to set him free". Just like they caved to pressure to release the Lockerbie bomber.

The UK is a joke.

We used to be the world super power and now look at us, sharing our navy fleet with France.

 

[Evo]

The UK is a joke.

We used to be the world super power and now look at us, sharing our navy fleet with France.

The US has tons of things wrong with it, but at least our Navy isn't part of a time share.

 

[nismaratwork]

The UK is a joke.

We used to be the world super power and now look at us, sharing our navy fleet with France.

Ouch... Well in a year or a century or more... the USA will be joining you. Want to practice our mandarin?

 

[WhoWee]

The US has tons of things wrong with it, but at least our Navy isn't part of a time share.

Oh my, LOL, people in the seats near me are wondering why I'm laughing.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

Just barging into say that I find the title of this thread to be silly.

Interesting discussion, great people, clever arguments, brilliant OP. But while the title of the thread is a great attention grabber, it sounds silly.

 

[brainstorm]

How many posts on this thread talk about "submission" to US law as if US authoritarianism was the product of government. US government is about DISRUPTING authoritarianism among the people so as to increase freedom. What sense does it make to ask if "the world should be subject to US law" when all that would ultimately mean is that global freedom and democracy should be protected against authoritarian domination? The only reason people shudder at the thought is because they desire such domination - why? because they are on the good smelling end of it. Why would anyone who experiences freedom without being intimidated for exercising it choose for authoritarian domination?

 

[nismaratwork]

How many posts on this thread talk about "submission" to US law as if US authoritarianism was the product of government. US government is about DISRUPTING authoritarianism among the people so as to increase freedom. What sense does it make to ask if "the world should be subject to US law" when all that would ultimately mean is that global freedom and democracy should be protected against authoritarian domination? The only reason people shudder at the thought is because they desire such domination - why? because they are on the good smelling end of it. Why would anyone who experiences freedom without being intimidated for exercising it choose for authoritarian domination?

I'm an American living in the USA and I don't buy that. Our government is just some endlessly chugging liberty machine?... right. We have a great system compared to most, but it's hardly some magical freedom-engine. We have a great deal of corruption, staggering debts, and many other issues including an unnatural emphasis on the "christian values" of a minority of the world (and our own) citizens. I can see why the notion of being under the rule of another country's laws and culture would be frightening, but as we're really talking about extradition for the most part... I'd just say Dr Lots-o'Watts hit this nail on the head; we have a great thread with a really silly title.

 

[brainstorm]

I'm an American living in the USA and I don't buy that. Our government is just some endlessly chugging liberty machine?... right.

It has to chug endless because most people still don't get what liberty is or see that theirs is hindered by ideological baggage that they've been saddled with and cling to as if it was a life-line.

We have a great system compared to most, but it's hardly some magical freedom-engine.

Do "we have a great system compared to most?" Can you even say that freely or are you driven by fear of dissenting from jingoist nationalist ideologism?

We have a great deal of corruption, staggering debts, and many other issues including an unnatural emphasis on the "christian values" of a minority of the world (and our own) citizens.

And why aren't you afraid to mention these critiques publicly? Would you blow the whistle if the corruption was in your workplace, school, or neighborhood? Would you confront Christian values directly to Christians? Would you reject debt by throwing the tea off the boat and living with the subsequent elimination of your credit?

I can see why the notion of being under the rule of another country's laws and culture would be frightening

How would/could you know this?

but as we're really talking about extradition for the most part

Why would you have to extradite someone to subject them to US law? US law prescribes trial by a jury of one's peers? How do you define "peers?" Why shouldn't the US government just combat unfair juridical practices globally? Why should people anywhere be subject to their rights being abridged when those rights are natural and self-evident?

Should the constitution be changed to say that it is not self-evident or natural except to those specifically indoctrinated into its worldview? Could US citizens who hold a different worldview then be exempted from their constitutional rights?

 

[nismaratwork]

It has to chug endless because most people still don't get what liberty is or see that theirs is hindered by ideological baggage that they've been saddled with and cling to as if it was a life-line.


Do "we have a great system compared to most?" Can you even say that freely or are you driven by fear of dissenting from jingoist nationalist ideologism?


And why aren't you afraid to mention these critiques publicly? Would you blow the whistle if the corruption was in your workplace, school, or neighborhood? Would you confront Christian values directly to Christians? Would you reject debt by throwing the tea off the boat and living with the subsequent elimination of your credit?


How would/could you know this?


Why would you have to extradite someone to subject them to US law? US law prescribes trial by a jury of one's peers? How do you define "peers?" Why shouldn't the US government just combat unfair juridical practices globally? Why should people anywhere be subject to their rights being abridged when those rights are natural and self-evident?

Should the constitution be changed to say that it is not self-evident or natural except to those specifically indoctrinated into its worldview? Could US citizens who hold a different worldview then be exempted from their constitutional rights?

"Can you even say that freely or are you driven by fear of dissenting from jingoist nationalist ideologism?"

Thanks for the best laugh I've had in days!

 

[JaredJames]

"Can you even say that freely or are you driven by fear of dissenting from jingoist nationalist ideologism?"

Thanks for the best laugh I've had in days!

+1

 

[nismaratwork]

It has to chug endless because most people still don't get what liberty is or see that theirs is hindered by ideological baggage that they've been saddled with and cling to as if it was a life-line.


Do "we have a great system compared to most?" Can you even say that freely or are you driven by fear of dissenting from jingoist nationalist ideologism?


And why aren't you afraid to mention these critiques publicly? Would you blow the whistle if the corruption was in your workplace, school, or neighborhood? Would you confront Christian values directly to Christians? Would you reject debt by throwing the tea off the boat and living with the subsequent elimination of your credit?


How would/could you know this?


Why would you have to extradite someone to subject them to US law? US law prescribes trial by a jury of one's peers? How do you define "peers?" Why shouldn't the US government just combat unfair juridical practices globally? Why should people anywhere be subject to their rights being abridged when those rights are natural and self-evident?

Should the constitution be changed to say that it is not self-evident or natural except to those specifically indoctrinated into its worldview? Could US citizens who hold a different worldview then be exempted from their constitutional rights?

Ok, I think you need to get back a bunch of pages and read the thread for the sake of context. You clearly believe I'm saying something I'm not even REMOTELY saying, and the talk of extradition is from the OP. You're very passionate, and I'm not laughing at that, but sometimes the way you express that passion leaves me breathless with laughter. I think you might want to lead with a, "more is less," approach instead of the Ayn Rand endless beating of the dead horse method.

 

[NeoDevin]

How many posts on this thread talk about "submission" to US law as if US authoritarianism was the product of government. US government is about DISRUPTING authoritarianism among the people so as to increase freedom. What sense does it make to ask if "the world should be subject to US law" when all that would ultimately mean is that global freedom and democracy should be protected against authoritarian domination? The only reason people shudder at the thought is because they desire such domination - why? because they are on the good smelling end of it. Why would anyone who experiences freedom without being intimidated for exercising it choose for authoritarian domination?

Yep, because US laws are the only way to "True Freedom"...

Are you serious, or are you trolling? I can't even tell.

 

[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.

Actually, it might be easier if the entire world did live under US law.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yep, because US laws are the only way to "True Freedom"...

Are you serious, or are you trolling? I can't even tell.

Oh he's serious, although he takes a tortuous path to his point, which may not be what you think it is. In essence however... yeah, he's your perfect punching bag, and you his; go nuts.

edit: I could be wrong. Brainstorm, you're from Hong Kong, but a US citizen now, right? If not then maybe I'm thinking of another, but otherwise Neodevin has is going to have a blast finally. Fingers crossed!

 

[brainstorm]

"Can you even say that freely or are you driven by fear of dissenting from jingoist nationalist ideologism?"

Thanks for the best laugh I've had in days!

Let me guess: you think it's a joke because no one who claims US governance is the best is doing so purely out of fear for social disapproval if they would say otherwise?

 

[nismaratwork]

Let me guess: you think it's a joke because no one who claims US governance is the best is doing so purely out of fear for social disapproval if they would say otherwise?

You don't get it?! You said the simplest thing in the world in the most... oh, never mind brainstorm. Suffice it to say that, no, I'm not motivated out of fear of social backlash...

...


Heh, I don't think I've heard that kind of rant since Dennis Miller was on SNL... and funny. Honestly, I also laughed because you remind me of Apeiron if he traded in his impressive knowledge-base for linguistic hyperbole. You asked...

 

[brainstorm]

Ok, I think you need to get back a bunch of pages and read the thread for the sake of context. You clearly believe I'm saying something I'm not even REMOTELY saying, and the talk of extradition is from the OP. You're very passionate, and I'm not laughing at that, but sometimes the way you express that passion leaves me breathless with laughter. I think you might want to lead with a, "more is less," approach instead of the Ayn Rand endless beating of the dead horse method.

Sometimes the biggest threat to democracy and ideological freedom is sarcasm and ridicule. When you lose hope to even communicate sincerely about ideas, how can you think that all political opinions are welcome? Erosion of democracy does, however, at least have its own self-correcting mechanism, which is that it retaliates against itself with violence, ultimately.

Yep, because US laws are the only way to "True Freedom"...

You're drawing inferences that I'm not implying. There are plenty of roads to democracy, aren't there?

Are you serious, or are you trolling? I can't even tell.

Trying to discuss the issues without any ideological conformism in either direction. Trying to think independently and have an open critical discussion.

edit: I could be wrong. Brainstorm, you're from Hong Kong, but a US citizen now, right? If not then maybe I'm thinking of another, but otherwise Neodevin has is going to have a blast finally. Fingers crossed!

This is rude, ad hominem style chattiness. It has no bearing on the thread discussion.

 

[brainstorm]

You don't get it?! You said the simplest thing in the world in the most... oh, never mind brainstorm. Suffice it to say that, no, I'm not motivated out of fear of social backlash...

It's ok, I understand your irritation because I get just as irritated at people who feel the need push for ever more colloquial writing. Some of us actually want to use language correctly without any kind of stylistic conformity.

Heh, I don't think I've heard that kind of rant since Dennis Miller was on SNL... and funny. Honestly, I also laughed because you remind me of Apeiron if he traded in his impressive knowledge-base for linguistic hyperbole. You asked...

Have you ever noticed how comedy is used to attempt to ridicule people into appeasing the sacred authority of the one who makes the audience laugh?