Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[t'Sade]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2982640.ece

This was one of those interesting things, mainly designed to rise up hatred for the US, but it makes you wonder what actually was said at that conversation and if the person saying it honestly meant that the US government can basically kidnap anyone they feel has violated a crime, even if they are not physically on US soil.

[KK]

I am trying to imagine some US cops (or agents or whoever) kidnapping a German on German soil.
As kidnapping is a crime and US law doesn't apply in Germany, these agents or whoever would logically in turn be arrested the moment they ever come back to Germany. And the reasoning that they were allowed to do so under US law would certainly not impress a German DA or judge.

I do remember the case of a German being suspected of having ties to Al Quaeda being kidnapped by the CIA and the outcry it created here - it was one of the reasons the political climate between Germany and the USA cooled a lot. But that didnt happen on German soil. If it had been on German soil, I am pretty sure the political backlash would have been... a lot more drastic.

But that is not really the issue at hand.

From a legal point of view this is mostly about the question whether a person can be tried after being kidnapped and brought to court. The answer to that question is and has always been yes. It doesn't matter why and how a person ends up within the jurisdiction of a country to face trial. If German cops would kidnap someone and bring him back to Germany to face trial, 2 things would happen: 1) The guy would face trial. 2) The cops would face trial for kidnapping.

So the way I see it, the difference in the USA is that the guys doing the kidnapping would not face trial in the USA.
Still, they most likely would in the country where the kidnapping happened (if they ever go back).

And no European country would tolerate such a blatant ignore of their jurisdiction and assumption of authority of US cops/agents on their soil. It simply won't happen, because, as I said above, if such a thing ever became public, the govt who allowed this to happen without putting serious pressure on the USA would lose all credibility and be required to step down.
So, I am not worried.

[LT]

This is one of the many things I'm really disappointed in my government about.  We harp and harp about our sovereignty on our own soil, and then we basically ignore every other country's sovereignty.    It also doesn't make much sense to me to do something like this in an allied country with which we already have an extradition treaty with.  Why kidnap people when you can have their cops arrest them and deliver them right to you?

[KK]

Mostly because many countries don't extradit their own countrymen.

For example, the German constitution says very clearly that no German will ever be extradited. So, if a German is wanted for a crime done in a foreign country, that country's authorities would have to present the case to a German court, which will then check if that crime is also a crime in Germany and if so, only German law will be applied.

I suppose the USA would rather want to try people with their own law, but that requires a trial in the USA.

[LT]

I really think the German people ought to reconsider that stance then.  Would they honestly want a murderer walking the streets in their own country just because the person he or she murdered was in another country?

[KK]

LT, I think you didn't understand my post.

Of course if a German murdered someone in another country and the evidence of it would be supplied to German authorities, then that person would be tried for murder in Germany.

In fact, no matter where you are as a German, if you do something that's a crime under German law and you get back to Germany, you will be tried if it comes out, because simply for being a German, German law applies to you IN ADDITION to whatever foreign law the other state has. So, for example if a German commits in a murder in a country where murder would be legal (ok, very hypothetical), he'd still be committing a crime as far as German law is concerned. I remember some cases of child molesters who abused children in Thailand. The were never tried there (even tho that's a crime there, bribery obviously makes authorities look the other way there). But, as evidence made its way to Germany, German DA offices were very happy to build cases against them.

The reason Germany (and afaik most other countries) have laws in effect that prevent extradition of their own people to the jurisdiction of other countries is, in fact, a very simple one: Sovereignity and security.
Imagine: Some country named Weirdland would make chewing bubblegum a crime punishable by death penalty. Some of your countrymen chew bubblegum there on their vacation. Then they fly home. A week later Weirdland's authorities demand extradition of your countrymen so they can be tried in Weirdland, possibly facing death penalty. I don't think you'd be very happy about that.
No-extradition laws for one's own countrymen prevents them from being tried for "crimes" or with penalties that are unknown or unacceptable in their own country.
It's also a way to prevent other countries from building ridiculous cases against another country's people. Something that used to be very "popular" until the end of the cold war. For example, imagine a CIA agent doing some stuff in the Soviet Union (nothing illegal, just gathering intel). His activities are discovered by Soviet counterintel only after he returned home. Now Soviet authorities build a case against him and demand extradition. Would you really want the USA to hand the guy over to some Soviet judge (who, of course would be totally neutral)? I think not.

As a side note:
To make matters (in Europe) more complicated, there is within the EU a European arrest warrant. The regulations about it also state that if someone is arrested in one EU country for committing a crime in another EU country, he has to be handed over to that country for trial. So far, there is no clear judgment on how that is to be interpreted if the person is German on and found on German soil. Technically in such a case extradition would be a violation of the German constitution. So the question is what's on top: the EU treaty or the German constitution. There's no case requiring clarification yet, but if there ever is, it will certainly make its way into law history. (And depending on its profile may cause a big problem for the govt).


Addendum:
There is also a UN treaty that defines certain crimes as crimes acknowledged by all UN members. Naturally all the capital crimes like murder, rape, armed robbery, crimes against humanity etc. So no matter where those are committed, the home coutnry would have to investigate and try these if there's probably cause. It's one of the reasons Interpol exists.
Of course, it's theoretical and heavily influenced politically when it comes to war crimes (which have little to do with justica but more with in whose favor a war ended).

[LT]

The reason Germany (and afaik most other countries) have laws in effect that prevent extradition of their own people to the jurisdiction of other countries is, in fact, a very simple one: Sovereignity and security.
Imagine: Some country named Weirdland would make chewing bubblegum a crime punishable by death penalty. Some of your countrymen chew bubblegum there on their vacation. Then they fly home. A week later Weirdland's authorities demand extradition of your countrymen so they can be tried in Weirdland, possibly facing death penalty. I don't think you'd be very happy about that.
No-extradition laws for one's own countrymen prevents them from being tried for "crimes" or with penalties that are unknown or unacceptable in their own country.
It's also a way to prevent other countries from building ridiculous cases against another country's people. Something that used to be very "popular" until the end of the cold war. For example, imagine a CIA agent doing some stuff in the Soviet Union (nothing illegal, just gathering intel). His activities are discovered by Soviet counterintel only after he returned home. Now Soviet authorities build a case against him and demand extradition. Would you really want the USA to hand the guy over to some Soviet judge (who, of course would be totally neutral)? I think not.

That's something that could be worked into the treaty though, if you even had a treaty with this hypothetical weirdland.  I'm pretty sure Canada refuses to extradite if the death penalty is on the table.  I get what you're saying though, that's actually the primary reason why the US will never cooperate with the "world court" in the Neatherlands, because they've already tried bringing charges against our president and against soldiers serving overseas for politial reasons.

[KK]

That's the point... if you had a treaty.

[luiscypher]

Okay, two things.

One, going after Al Quaeda via the CIA, DIA or NSA for rendition bothers me a whole lot less than the FBI and/or other government agencies prossecution of people for crimes committed outside the country.

Why?  Because what the CIA et al do is always illegal.  Period.  It's acknowledged.  Mission Impossible: you get caught, you're on your own.  It's part of being an intelligence operative, goes with the territory you're going to be breaking the law.  Maybe even American law.

BUT: when we start building precedent where we chase after citizens of other countries or even American Citizens and prossecute them IN COURT for crimes OUTSIDE the Juristiction of the United States, that frightens me!  It's setting precedent that the World Court can come in, or the court of any other country can come in and prossecute any U.S. Citizens for a crime, real or imagined, against one of their own citizens or property within U.S. Territory.

There is no "Right to Kidnap"... and that's the way it needs to stay.  The CIA does it because it's necessary from time to time.  Do they make mistakes, you bet. I'm very sorry but this issue is so small next to the agregious power grabs by our federal government it's not worth worrying about.

Do I need to explain my rational further?

[luiscypher]

Okay, so my previous comments are still true, but I had yet to read the article.

I dissagree with U.S. authorities kidnapping people, however, Private Bounty Hunters do it all the time and that should continue.  It goes back to people escaping to Mexico to avoid prossecution and bounty hunters following them down there.  It's even depicted somewhat accurately in the film Domino.

U.S. Government, IMHO, have no legal right to take any direct action on that level under the Constitution of the United States WITHOUT direct and specific orders from the President of the United States with a specific Executive Order for that singular action.

[luiscypher]

Okay, the Story references two cases of kidnapping.

Humberto Alvarez Machain, which the story says was kidnapped by the "U.S. Government" was not, in fact, kidnapped by U.S. Authorities.  It is a LIE.  He was kidnapped by Bounty Hunters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberto_%C3%81lvarez_Macha%C3%ADn

I'm willing to bet money that the other case of U.S. Government abduction the story mentions, the one of Gavin Tollman, was very likely also that of Bounty Hunters.

So this tells me two things: One, the Times of London has an agenda, and two, they're willing to LIE in print to make their case.

[KK]

I disagree about the right of private bounty hunters to kidnap people.
Why would a citizen have more rights than the state? That makes no sense to me.

Btw, I think the USA are the only Western democratic nation that allows bounty hunting. It stems from historical and back then plausible reasons. But the world has changed since then a lot.
And afaik bounty hunters are only allowed to kidnap people who jumped their bail. Which means a court of a law has already decided that these people have to appear at court and were arrested before. So technically any cop in the USA could arrest them on US soil anyway. And outside US soil a bounty hunter would violate the law just like the CIA would, if they kidnap anyone. So ifthey get caught, they're on their own as well.

And another thing: It cannot make a difference if "the govt" kidnaps someone or a bounty hunter kidnaps them and gets the money from "the govt". It's the same principle as privateers in 17th century: Privateers had a charter by a nation and were "allowed" to attack the merchant ships of other nations. Still, officially they weren't considered part of the nation's military, so that nation would always say: "Oh, your merchants ships are raided? Well, it wasn't one of our ships." Of course, if a privateer was caught, they were hanged as pirates.
Also think about this: If bounty hunting supported by the govt were "okay", the govt could just say to its agents: "Okay guys, we fire you for as long as you do that bounty hunting thing, so you can legally do that. When you're finished and got your bounty, we hire you are again."

[t'Sade]

I think that is following the letter of the law, but not the spirit. I would consider the government paying people to kidnap others outside of the country the same thing as sending out people. It doesn't matter if it is a contractor or not, it is the intent. You might mask it ("oh look, he just happened to be dragged in the country by a bounty hunter... we'll take him") but in the end, the country is still violating treaties.

Unfortunately, there is no effective oversight on the US. The UN still doesn't have the power to really enforce anything against the US. Which means the US doesn't really get punished for anything it does, therefore it takes advantage of it. Some people say the events after 9/11 were that, the US knowing it was wrong but since no one could do anything about it, they went forward anyways.

(Loosely related, I think a world government is a great idea, but this is one of the places it would fail. There needs to be some way of keeping a government in check to avoid them abusing their power.)