Perhaps a hypothetical would explain the difference: Let’s say, just hypothetically, that a group of hackers breaks into the electronic records of both major political parties. And rather than release all the information they obtained, they keep Party A’s information to themselves to use as blackmail and coordinate the release of the most damaging of Party B’s information with agents of Party A. Then, when Party A takes power and is objectively viewed as one of the most corrupt and venal administrations in history, the hackers release nothing that would cast Party A in a negative light.
Now, again speaking hypothetically, would that group of hackers have any claim to being champions of “transparency” or enemies of imperialism or any other high-minded ideals in that scenario?
Indeed, a reasonable person would assume that to be the case, which illustrates the point.
That’s not really the way extradition works at all. Not is it really relevant here.
Well it would be nice if there was a site that allowed that kind of thing to happen. But wikileaks ain’t it. I don’t think I’ve heard of anything interesting out of them since Assange has been hiding out avoiding sex assault charges. And this punitive and blatantly grotesque shitshow that the US is orchestrating is all about making sure that never happens to them again.
Everyone up on charges thinks they have reasons. They’re trans and going to a military prison is torture - their mother is sick - they have bone spurs.
I didn’t say one word about Assange, I argued that rendering a person to another country when following an existing treaty is proper when you seemed to be arguing that the very idea of extradition is a crazy, unprecedented power grab.
Now, If you want to talk about Assange’s case in particular the big problem is that almost all of the charges against him are Esionage Act charges, and since espionage is a political offense they would fall squarely in the political offense exception to the US-UK extradition treaty. My understanding is that Assange’s attorney’s are properly arguing exactly that. That leaves the one charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. I’d say the problem there isn’t the claim of jurisdiction (if you hack a computer in another country I’d say you clearly comitted a crime there), it’s that the alleged overt acts in pursuit of the conspoiracy are pretty damn weaksauce. If the UK ruled against the US and said it wasn’t an extraditable offense I wouldn’t say they were wrong.
He was against Clinton because he expected her to win and he thought she would start more wars. He likely didn’t understand that he, personally, could change the outcome of the election, and so it was just one more thing he was irresponsible about. He didn’t imagine something bad could happen and it would be his fault. That’s probably still outside his conception of how the world works.
Do you think it’s plausible that he knew very well something bad could happen, that working as the agent of someone like Putin to advance the interests of someone like Trump could have devastating consequences, but simply didn’t didn’t care enough to outweigh his desire for personal revenge?
Neither @Bozobub nor I am advocating against extradition generally. When a crime has been committed in the USA, the person leaves, then they should be retrieved. That’s not what we are talking about. You know this, so don’t be obtuse.
We are specifically talking about the situation where a person was never in the USA, and the USA takes offense and then issues the summons for that person in another country.
It is a slippery slope. Are we someday going to start extraditing people who assault Americans in other countries? Or extradite people because we feel they are bad and just need to come here and face our justice system? Is there no limit to American hegemony?
This same spirit of American imperialism is what created extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo. There are still 40 people there. Pretty sure they never had trials, at least not anything resembling what we’d expect for ourselves.
So, if America can simply pluck a man from another country, then what’s to stop us from sending him right to Cuba? Why do all this trial nonsense, when you can skip directly to the prison part to silence our enemies? Why not? Let’s just go kill or kidnap anyone who crosses us.
This would mean that any financial fraud or theft perpetrated online in an other country would not be subject to prosecution for crimes committed against the citizens of that country in that country. Good luck getting justice or compensation. You’re going to have to move to another country for a few years.
Or that say - executives of Union Carbide who had never been to India but were responsible for the Bhopal disaster couldn’t be extradited.
Not sure that’s particularly equitable.
Of course- in the thought experiment- it’s the perfect crime. Just shoot a guy in the US from across the border in Mexico. No one was killed in Mexico- so no crime was committed there. And you can’t extradite to the US.
This is what treaties are supposed to be for: countries agreeing how to handle deeds and misdeeds over borders. And you are right: there are a bazillion variations and we can keep thinking up new ones till the cows come home.
Extradition isn’t simply a treaty. It’s a process that involves checks. For example is it a crime in the extraditing country? Will there be a chance of a fair trial? Was due process followed? Are the judiciary independent of political pressure? So for example Ireland stated a case to the ECJ to see if they could process an extradition request due to political meddling with judges.
