Australian Extradited For Breaking US Law At Home 777
An anonymous reader sends us a link to a report in The Age about an Australian resident, who had never set foot in the US and broke US intellectual-property laws in Australia, being extradited to the US to face trial. Hew Raymond Griffiths pleaded guilty in Virginia to overseeing all aspects of the operation of the group Drink Or Die, which cracked copy-protected software and media products and distributed them for free. He faces up to 10 years in a US jail and half a million dollars in fines.
Sad (Score:4, Informative)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since we don't want criminals using national borders to shield themselves, a large number of nations have extradition treaties with each other. There are restrictions on those treaties, for example Canada can refuse to extradite in cases where the person would face the death penalty, but in general if it is a legit request, the extradition is honoured.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason any of this seems OK is because it's going on between countries with similar laws. If the laws of two countries are too different nobody would thing it was a good idea. It would be like the US trying to extradite someone from Amsterdam for smoking pot. What if Iran decided it wants to extradite someone for breaking their laws? Doesn't seem like such a good idea does it?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Netherlands does actually get dozens of US extradition requests a year for drugs related crimes, and regularly does extradite Dutch citizens for engaging in drugs transactions with Americans and in some cases even with DEA agents operating on Dutch soil. It's a major political issue here, but the major (conservative) government coalition parties apparently basically tolerate this kind of activity because it creates a possibility to use forms of entrapment that would otherwise be illegal here, and it is easier to get people in jail in the US, particularly through plea bargaining, which is also illegal here. Just smoking pot is safe, though.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
At first glance, it's difficult to imagine why country A would send a person to country B for prosecution, when the person did something that is also illegal in country A. The answer relates to everything behind that single word: prosecution.
In this case, the United States has all the evidence and has conducted the investigation and is the entity making the accusation.
This is part of the reason extradition agreements are so complex. The Australian government has reviewed the United States' case against the accused and believes it has merit. That combined with the other standard rules of extradition treaties (such as a guarantee to a fair trial, protection from cruel and unusual treatment, etc) are the reasons governments will extradite their own citizens.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but actually, yes, I'd want it that way.
Think about it for a moment. Did he break any Australian laws? If the answer is "yes", then I don't see what the problem is with putting him on trial in Australia; certainly, if an Australian citizen breaks Australian law while on Australian soil, putting him on trial before an Australian cou
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, the guy violated copyright law - Australian copyright law, as mentioned in TFA, However, since the unlawful act was carried out in Australia, I have no idea why he can't be sentenced there. The US argument is presumably that the copyright owners are in the US, but so what? If I injure a German person while he visits France, should I be extradited to Germany from France? This whole issue just seems bizarre.
Re:Sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Hrngh. No.
The guy has been accused of violating copyright law by certain people in the US. He has not been convicted. The question of his guilt has not even been examined by a court. He has been extradited not for violating copyright law, but for being accused of violating copyright law.
If somebody in the US accused you of violating copyright law, you can be extradited too. It does not matter whether you did it. The US extradition treaties do not operate on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", they operate on the principle of "everybody is guilty" - proof is not required, requested, or considered. A bureaucrat signs a form and you get shipped into a US jail. (At their option, this can be a US jail that isn't located on US soil, like Gitmo, so they aren't obliged to ever examine whether you are guilty of anything)
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFA: "...Griffiths, 44, is in a Virginia cell, facing up to 10 years in an American prison after a guilty plea late last month...."
This means the "accused" admitted he was wrong. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, his "question of guilt" has been examined by a court. Actually, there is not even a question of guilt, but an admission of guilt. He convicted himself in court. No need for the whole process. How many more times do I have to say he's guilty as examined by a court. A judge even has the chance to look at the facts of the case with a guilty plea and say "there's no case here, dismissed." But, that is not happening here because what occurred is legal in the US, Australia, and international law.
Better check your facts next time. Oh, wait; this is Slashdot.
Re:Sad (Score:4, Informative)
Well, we had about 80 Australian tourists blown up in Bali by fanatics who wanted to protest against American policies, and thought we were close enough. Unfortunatley, while they were actually correct in that, the Americans themselves hardly noticed.
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, a few too many Australians. 40% of them voted for him directly, and another 6% for the national party with which they have a formal alliance. Due to the allocation of preferences this allowed them to ultimately win power. But you could not say that the majority of voters directly voted for him at the last election.
It certainly looks like alot less are going to vote for him now for our unconditional support in invading Iraq. The disaster that Iraq has proven to be wasn't so evident in 2004 at the last election, at least to the general public.
Its not like that many Australian companies have even had sweetheart deals with Iraq - so its hard to see even the commercial gain for the venture for Australia.
Whilst I think that most Australians (myself included) would support the US in any war or real threat to US soil, few of us really want to go invading other countries without good reason. One of the major holidays in Australia, ANZAC day, reminds us yearly of the horrors of unnecessary wars. The words we repeat at the end of the dawn service is "Lest we forget". It reflects the Australian ethos that war is a bad thing, and we should remember this. Sadly, it would seem that John Howard did forget the horror of war when he chose to support the invasion of Iraq.
Anyway, for the majority of Australians who didn't actually vote for John Howard at the last election, I think we are entitled to grumble a little.
But I certainly agree with you that we have no right to blame the US for our mistakes. Including John Howard. That was all our own doing.
Michael
Vice versa (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Vice versa (Score:5, Informative)
I also have another one of a foreigner being sent to the US [bbc.co.uk] -- so it's not just Australia -- not that that's a good thing.
Some conjecture that I can't back up follows: I've read that the US rarely agrees to send their citizens overseas, rather just denying the extradition requests when they are in the courts.
Re:Vice versa (Score:4, Informative)
Whereas this case is about an Australian guy who commited a crime *in* Australia and the gringos want to fsck him just because
Re:Vice versa (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I know, the US has one way extradition-treates with most of Europe atleast (I know they have one with us, Norway, atleast). This is 'yet another reason' for why alot of/most people view the US as just another country, rather than the bastion of freedom.
Needs to be said (Score:5, Informative)
But yet nothing is done to catch the 419 scammers and all the spammers selling (often fake) pharmaceuticals.
Dangerous Precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
What is wrong with this? What's wrong is wrong, right? Well, the problem is that, in a democracy, citizens need to have
Glad to be German (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Glad to be German (Score:5, Informative)
(This is specified in Art. 16 (2) GG: http://www.datenschutz-berlin.de/recht/de/gg/gg1_
EU Expedited Extradition (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no limits on re-extradition.
Worse, there is no judicial check in the UK, that the reasons given for the extradition, really complies with the requirements for extraditing. This is why a McKinnon (who broke US PCs into had a look around and left) is being accused of doing $5000 damage to each PC, in order for it to be a Federal crime and hence extraditable. The extradition mechanism doesn't let a UK judge check it.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/25/extraditi
In theory they could make any allegation against any UK citizen and get them extradited (kidnapped in effect) and the court could do nothing.
[rant]F***ing Blair. We elected a leader, and he became a Bush follower and sold us out. I'll piss on his grave when he dies for the damage he's done to the UK sovereignty. [/rant]
Re:Glad to be German (Score:5, Insightful)
Well as a UK Citizen, we signed an agreement that allowed USUK extradition.
However, the US hasn't, and won't sign their half !!!
In contract-law speak, this is called being 'screwed over'.
Blair (et al.) doesn't have the balls to revoke our ratification, despite the fact that several high-profile extradition cases have gone to the high court, and several high profile US->UK cases are just piling up, e.g. US servicemen causing in a large proportion of UK military deaths and casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan.
To quote one US airman, who had just strafed and killed solders in a UK convoy - "Man, we're going to jail.". But luckily, US laws only apply when/where they say it does.
Re:Glad to be German (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well actually they do, but call it "extraordinary rendition" instead.
Wanna bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely Disgusting (Score:4, Interesting)
We are making our military hardware compatible with theirs, we are fighting in stupid profit based wars that go against the international community with them.
They don't hand over their war criminals for international trial, and now they expect everyone around the world to respect their laws.
Americas international standing is reducing every day. And judging by the media driven fear of the outside they are cultivating and the laughable democratic system and a retard for a president, they are well on the way to being the worst totalitarian state out there.
We have the names of U.S states and capitals rammed down our necks by countless TV shows and movies and they don't even know we have states.
I hope Iran/China/N. Korea gets some US citizens extradited too as part of this new high in international cooperation.
This is entirely unacceptable. (Score:5, Informative)
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the conduct results in one or more infringements of the copyright in a work or other subjectmatter; and
(c) the infringement or infringements have a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright; and
(d) the infringement or infringements occur on a commercial scale.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than 550 penalty units or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the conduct results in one or more infringements of the copyright in a work or other subjectmatter; and
(c) the infringement or infringements have a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright and the person is negligent as to that fact; and
(d) the infringement or infringements occur on a commercial scale and the person is negligent as to that fact.
Penalty: 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.
If equivalent offences were not in existence in Australia, then perhaps I might be more willing to accept it (although even then I would have drastic reservations). As it stands, I cannot accept this.
I've known for a while... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fools who were so adamant for Australia's split with the English monarchy now failed to realise one crucial detail; Australia's genuine independence is never going to happen. If we split with England entirely, America will rush in to fill the void before anyone can blink.
Welcome to the 51st state.
Open Source Software (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Open Source Software (Score:4, Funny)
Man, are you behind the times; it's been the CIA for years.
Terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
The fundamental questions is, what do you do when someone from another country harms your citizens or destroys their property? Criminals used run for the state or country border to avoid prosecution. No they just play in the fuzzy areas of national sovereignty. Many of the conflicts in the world follow this pattern. In this case Australia decided to hand the criminal over the the US for prosecution. Maybe they are trying to send a message to criminals hiding behind these gray areas of sovereignty.
Re:Terrorism (Score:4, Interesting)
Now think about it. How many stupid laws from stupid countries have you broken in your peaceful life in the US. Want an example: ever had sex without being married? That's a serious crime in Iran, Saudi, UAE and many other countries... You can get serious fines and jail time for it.
Either the law is the same in the two countries, which is the case here, and thus it is unfair to extradate the person because he would be more able to defend itself in is home country, he would be able to have support from his family... visits during his jail time. etc... So there should be no extradition.
Either the law is different but the crime for the "foreign" country was committed in the home country. In that case what he did is not a crime so there's no extradition.
Extradition should be only reserved for cases where the crime occured in a foreign country.
In this case, the extradition is unfair. The crime happened only in Australia. There was no hacking into US computers or anything alike.
Nice Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone needs to ask for the extradition of your president and our prime minister for crimes against humanity - starting illegal wars, killing 10,000s of civilian non-combatants, detention without trial and lots more bad things.
Obviously they are not illegal in the USA or the UK because they say so, but there are lots of places where this sort of behaviour is against the rules. If such extraditions are not a good thing, perhaps someone should say why mass murder is less important than intellectual "property".
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the fact that he isn't under US jurisdiction?
He most certainly is under US jurisdiction. We own the Australian government, which means we own Australia, which means we own your ass. Break our laws and we'll slam you in our prisons, because we can, and it makes us money to do so.
Welcome to the new world order, Bush (Sr., Jr.) and Clinton style.
Until Australia (and, for that matter, the UK) learns to stand up to the world's biggest bully (what to my immense shame is what my country, the United States, has become), they and their people will be under our jurisdiction, subject to our laws on their own soil, and with no protection from their own governments. Just like the soviet satellite states of the last century, we'll let you wave your own flags and call yourselves whatever you like, but fuck with us and our cash flow, and we'll slam you into our gulag.
You want this to not be the case? Then elect and demand a government with some backbone that will tell the United States exactly where it can get off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Funny)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
The US, at the moment, is not behaving as befits a leader in freedom and human rights. It's traditional allies should stand up and refuse to endorse the excesses. We are not helping our friends in the US by pandering to their government and corporate world's ugly abuses.
If you were to suffer a mental illness and set fire to your own house, who would be the better neighbor; the one who tried to stop you, and tried to extinguish the fire, or the one who followed you into the flames?
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
A very apt description of the relationship between Australia and the US, Howard and Bush.
And since John Howard is another Bush-like proto-fascist authoritarian, it should not surprise that his administration would play fast and loose with outdated concepts like "rights" and "sovereignty".
John Howard has chosen to lead Australia by following George Bush into the flames of his phony "war on terror", and the rest of us will have to live in the hell they leave behind.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:4, Funny)
Oh. Well, I just assumed since we're claiming jurisdiction...
Re:voting for the other guy (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting [wikipedia.org]
Whilst this system of counting is not the best, statistically speaking (the best are Condorcet methods, though they also have their weaknesses) it is simple to understand (and count), and in the vast majority of cases results in the candidate who is most preferred by the most number of people being elected.
The US method of "plurality" voting is statistically the *worst* method available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system [wikipedia.org]
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
When your governments don't stand up to ours it hurts us as much as it does you.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
The US has never been a leader, or even decent, as far as freedom and human rights go. It was found on genocide and slavery, expanded by conquering territory by warfare, proceeded to become the only nation to ever have used nuclear weapons against humans (not to mention civilian targets), supported one bloodthirsty dictator and guerrilla movement after another during the Cold War, and continues its track record of corpse production with Iraq War and Guantamano Bay. It has the largest prison population in the entire world, and the epidemic of rape in said prisons is a running joke to its population. It is one (only ?) of the few industrialized countries which still has death penalty. Bribery is an accepted procedure of its highest levels of politics, and the highest leaders have openly declared themselves to be above the law.
Just where did you get this utterly ridiculous idea that the US is a leader in freedom or human rights ? When has it ever stood up for those ?
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:4, Funny)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens to the innocent people there who eventually go home? There are many held at Gitmo who have already proven to be innocent who are stuck there because their home countries won't allow them back.
No matter how bad these people are, we should not stoop to their level and must respect human rights, otherwise we are little better than they are. This country was founded on certain principals, and if we throw them out because of terrorists, then the terrorists have won.
I agree we should throw the book at those responsible for terrorism, but I also believe in habeus corpus. If they're guilty, lock them up forever or in some cases death, but make sure they're guilty first. Our current behavior has robbed the US of the moral high ground in the eyes of many outside this country.
After all, would you fully trust the word of Pakistan about who is innocent and who is guilty? After all, they were one of the Taliban's biggest supporters up until 9/11 and still support them through numerous warlords.
As for blaming Carter, you also should blame Ronald Reagan for quietly cowing to the terrorists in Lebanon and illegally supplying weapons to Iran or supporting WMDs in Iraq and Saddam. Carter was a wimp and screwed up, but so did Ronald Reagan. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Interventions _of_the_Reagan_Administration [wikipedia.org]Wikipedia.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the difference between good and evil is that good doesn't do evil while evil does. Evil doesn't neccessarily desire to do evil, it simply has nothing against doing it either when it will (in its subjective opinion) benefit from it. Good doesn't do evil even when it would (in its subjective opinion) benefit from it. That's why most people tend towards evil: it is the path you follow naturally if you don't care about the pain you cause; your own comments about not giving RATS ASS about "muslim sensitivities" and the acts this lack of caring would lead you to being a perfect example of that.
But if you do evil things (such as torture people), don't lie to yourself; you are being evil, no matter how relucatantly you did those actions, because you still did them.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
That aggressive right-to-might belief is a fundamental strategic error, and used as a ruse to centralize power by increasing insecurity, and thus reduce the need for false flag operations.
When you invade other countries, hell, when you put over 700 military bases in foreign countries, establish an international influence-pervert-abduct-torture network, establish a global disinformation campaign, spend more money on the rule of force than the rest of the world combined, work with tyrants, and work hand-in-hand with industry to shift capital and control away from sovereignty everywhere, well, people will be pissed off.
When you try to crush the few extreme radicals that this naturally results in, by killing lots of civilians and destroying infrastructure (and thus ways of life), hey presto, many many more radicals with nothing left to lose. The US military is a radical-producing machine.
When you put a military base on holy land of a competing militant religion and use it to create more displaced refugees--oh look, suicide bombers.
Yes, I'm saying that spending a trillion dollars annually on international education/propaganda and diplomacy rather than military aggression would have resulted in greater security for the USA (but fewer riches for the shareholders of lockheed-martin and halliburton et al). Too late now, though, you got the enemies you were looking for, and it will take a generation to make peace.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Benign Superpower.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Based on this case, Aussies should have the right to vote for American president and to have their elected representatives in US Congress and Senate - If a Law applies on you, you should be entitled to participate in electing the lawmakers. Law is not law and justice a justice if we didn't agree upon it in a democratic process. Else, it is not called law, but tyranny.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, this is about representation first and foremost -- but the responsibility lies with citizens of other countries to ensure that their own governments protect them.
US laws -- and constitutional rights -- apply to US citizens. I'm not especially concerned about what other countries allow us to do to their own citizens. That doesn't mean I like it or condone it, but quite frankly these are the same people who deride us and our country on a regular basis. It strikes me as a little odd that their own paradisaical existence can be so terribly flawed as to permit them to be bundled up and submitted for processing by the big bad United States. Huh, maybe problems of government aren't unique to the US? Imagine that.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, our current government has decided that it is not in fact a limited government and has repeatedly ignored the Constitution. Even the courts have noted this. Hopefully, hopefully we will be able to steer things back on course before it's too late. But that hope strikes me as dim, given the fact that Congress, for instance, has so much it can impeach the president for -- Gitmo, Warrantless searches, authorizing torture, denying habeus corpus, etc -- but has done nothing.
--sabre86
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
We're a similar culture, a similar government, a common language, but the US doesn't "own" us any more than we "own" the US.
Just because we don't agree with the law being enforced doesn't mean we should complain about common laws being enforced across borders, it means we should be against that common law.
International cooperation is good, the law is bad.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Now you give the murderer a BFG - he sits in Australia picking off Americans one by one via long range death.
To you propose to let him off? He never left Austrailia, never killed anyone there, etc.
He committed a crime in a foriegn country. Both his country and the foriegn country 1) agree that the accusation is about an actionable crime, and 2) agree that people should be tried in the country where the damage was done.
This isn't unusual, this is how law enforcement works, people!
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Interesting)
This "New World Order" goes back at LEAST 60 years
I will say, however, that this is the first time I've heard of anything involving extradition for violating US law when the person involved has never set foot in the US, and the crimes never took place on US soil.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Who in Austrailia is damaged by copyright infringement against US companies? Why on Earth would you hold the trial there? (Mind you, they do hold a hearing in Australia to make sure that the charges are valid and warrant extradition. But that won't be discussed on Slashdot, eh?)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Informative)
Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00
Hope is very pleasant and all but once a nation starts down a road it can be hard to reverse course. Things can get _much_ worse. Empire is incompatible with democracy.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting how you equate something like breaking copyright to a much more heinous crime like illegal drug manufacturing. Dude, seriously, it's goddamn software.
It's an extradition treaty... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
They do.
Just so long as it doesn't involve US citizens. Or military personnel.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Many Americans believe that it is. But only in the sense that anyone, living anywhere in the world, should be subject to US justice for breaking US laws. Lesser breeds are welcome to cheat, rob, assault, murder, and torture one another - indeed, this is often positively encouraged - as long as no American loses out in the process.
There are two logically distinct and incompatible positions being confused here.
1. The USA is the world's most progressive nation, in the sens
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
First? (Score:4, Informative)
Honestly, is that what they teach you in America? The word democracy is an ancient Greek word. Why would the ancient Greeks have a word for something that didn't exist until 1776? Because democracy existed long before the United States did. India was a democracy 8000 years ago, Afghanistan and Pakistan 6000 years ago. The Iroquois Confederacy, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Althing in Iceland, early medieval Ireland, the Veche in Slavic countries... all democracies, all before the US came into being.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming you're American, would you want to be extradited to Australia for breaking an Australian law in the US even though you'd never been to Australia?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Good thought. There's a few directions you can go with this.
What about an American Journalist being extradited to China for criticising the government there.
What about being extradicted to a non-secular country for saying something against their religion.
But we are talking IP. What about an Indian being extradited to Sweden for copying IKEA furniture. Even though there are no IKEA stores in India. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 006/02/12/MNG41H6PEF1.DTL [sfgate.com].
Someones crossed a line here,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Criticizing China is not a crime in the US, so there would be no reason to extradite. Additionally, extradition laws typically require that the defendant can expect a fair trial (not the case in China) and may contain other requirements (prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, for example).
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
If an American currently in Australia is mugged then that crime is comitted in Australia. The fact that American interests (people) were affected does not mean that the offence was comitted in the USA.
The global nature of the Internet does make the location of some crimes ambiguous but that doesn't make it right to just go ahead and pick a jurisdiction.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, yes, actually, it's called "sovereignty" and other countries get to have it too! Sucks for us, don't it?
If you want to stop "harm to American interests" then the appropriate method of doing it is to deal with the UN and international law, not to bully other countries into following our national ones.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, by the way, I'm sure you and just about every other American has done enough things that are illegal in some country that we'd be locked up for life, or worse, if we were extradited there. Have sex outside of marriage, or in some "deviant" (i.e., anything other than missionary) position? I'll bet that's a capital offense in some religion-infested place. Spit on the sidewalk? That'll land you in prison in Indonesia. Drive on the right side of the road? Ooh, that's a severe violation in England and Japan! Remember, it doesn't matter that you were driving down Route 66 at the time...
Now, think of the madness that would ensue if everyone were as stupid and shortsighted as you are. Aren't you glad you're not in charge?
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A gentleman was recently sentenced to 10 years in Thailand because he defaced a picture of the King of Thailand while in that country. If I, while in the US, create a website that defames the King of Thailand do you expect the US would send me there to do my time? What if my website where written in the Thai language with the blatant intent of being available not only to Tha
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Interesting)
In Germany, the rules for extradition (from Germany to another country) are:
1. It must have been a crime according to German law, but committed in the country that asks for extradition. As it is relevant in this case, the location where a crime is committed is the place where it takes effect, so it would be _possible_ for someone being physically in Australia to commit a crime in the USA.
2. The person to be extradited must be able to expect a fair trial.
3. There is no "cruel or unusual" punishment for that crime. This prevents death sentence for anyone extradited from Germany to the USA.
And a few minor points, like the country asking for extradition must show enough proof that German prosecution in the same situation would put the case to a court, and you can't get extradited for anything minor, where the extradition itself would be more punishment than the crime is worth.
So for defacing a picture of the Thai king, you wouldn't be extradited. (Note that insulting foreign heads of state might get you into trouble in Germany. Obviously you can't get extradited for that, because Thailand cannot claim that you are insulting a foreign head of state. )
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a Canuck. Every time I light a Cuban cigar, I'm "blatantly flaunting American law". Tough noogies.
Every time a Dutch citizen avails himself of a prostitute, he's "blatantly flaunting American law". Tough noogies.
Every time a British citizen drives on the left side of th
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I personally think since he was so happy with the way the Nazis ran Germany, they should have treated him how the Nazis would have treated him (most likely death through hanging, which they used to do with people distributing pamphlets against the current government), but they just put him to jail for a few years, and you won't find anyone named Bubba in a Ge
Re:If I was stealing AUS shit, yes, I'd expect to (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I moderate on the merits of the post. I have stopped correcting spelling/grammar errors by followup comment as I've discovered that English is not the first language of many posters, although their point of view is as valid as mine. Please don't be misled by the fraction of slashdotters who are loud-mouthed assholes and swagger around like ultra-patriots. Since this is supposedly a free nation, all of us must suffer the inelegant employment of that freedom by some in order to justify our own. I repeat, we are not a monolithic nation, but I concede it could look that way from afar...
Re:If I was stealing AUS shit, yes, I'd expect to (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. From outside the US I see a bunch of right-wingers arguing with another bunch of right-wingers about how far to the right the most acceptable form of government is. Now if you actually had a party that was on the left, then you might be able to call the voting public polarized, but until then...
Bob
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
This case does not appear to be based on any of those theories of jurisdiction. According to the article, the US charged Mr. Griffiths with conspiracy. Under conspiracy, any one conspirator is liable for the acts of any other person in the conspiracy.
This is very troublesome when applied to such a mundane crime as copying works and giving them to people who never would have bought them in the first place. The actual effect of the conspiracy is arguably insignificant. It doesn't seem as troublesome when applied to something who planned the 9/11 attacks, where the effect is very significant. But the theory of jurisdiction is the same: conspiracy with people who committed criminal acts inside the prosecuting country.
Lets just put it this way... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Funny)
Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nigerian scammers take another leap.
Re:Listen... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Thankfully we still have some sanity here in NZ. Although there was perhaps some keenness to hitch up withAustralia in the 1980s and 1990s, less kiwis think thta way now.
Re:Looks like he violated... (Score:5, Informative)
If you break a law in a country you get tried IN THAT COUNTRY. Extradition works to preserve that - if you break the law then leave the country, you can be extradited BACK to that country to stand trial.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the average rape sentence is less than the maximum copyright infringement sentence. To compare properly, you have to compare maximum to maximum or average to average. The maximum rape sentence is probably life in prison (or maybe death in some states); the average copyright infringement is probably considerably less than 10 (or even 6) years.
Still sound as unreasonable as it did before?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course. I downloaded the DoD release.