New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
from the not-going-well dept
The US's case against Kim Dotcom and Megaupload continues to run into significant problems. While the US Justice Department (with an assist from New Zealand law enforcement) has continued to insist that extraditing Kim Dotcom halfway around the world to the US was a mere formality, and that the evidence against him need not be shown, the courts in New Zealand have taken a rather different view. They refused to rubberstamp the acquisition as the US hoped. Then, the New Zealand High Court stepped in to review the extradition issue, making a final ruling that says that the FBI needs to reveal its evidence and that the extradition request does not comply with the law as currently written.In other words, a complete and utter failure by the FBI in this effort.
The full ruling (pdf and embedded below) is quite an interesting read, if you've got the time. Basically, the court agrees with the assertion from the US that an extradition hearing isn't meant to try the full case... but, then points out that this doesn't mean you completely ignore the basic rights of the accused. It is still a criminal case, and as such they have certain basic rights that must be observed -- and which the US was trying to deny to Dotcom. The court considers a variety of case law, including some Canadian extradition cases, and even directly notes that some past cases involved "rubber stamp" approvals of extradition (literally using that term). However, more recent cases have pushed back against that and said that the home court need not try all of the evidence, but should at least look at the evidence to see if it is defective.
The court further notes the fundamental unfairness of the argument made by the US and New Zealand: "severely restrict[ing] the ability of [one party] to file relevant evidence would not easily be characterised as 'fair.'"
The bigger question, then, was whether or not the FBI needed to release its evidence to Dotcom, and again, the Court ruled against the US's position. The Court notes that the law enforcement folks rely on obsolete and outdated caselaw to make their argument, and notes that "I do not find this line of authority particularly persuasive" because they really cover different issues, and (of course) the arguments made appear to be stretched from the original intentions. The judge seems to recognize that the FBI and the Crown are making ridiculous arguments, noting that there is "nothing incompatible" with revealing the evidence in New Zealand and then using it in the US case should extradition be granted.
In my view disclosure should be provided by the requesting state. The Act provides the person sought with a right to challenge whether the threshold for extradition has been met before he will be extradited. Consistent with the requirements of... the Bill of Rights Act to a fair hearing, the person sought should be given access to sufficient information to enable him or her to fully participate in that hearing on an equally informed basis. Without access to materials relevant to the extradition hearing phase, the person sought will be significantly constrained in his or her ability to participate in the hearing and the requesting state will have a significant advantage in terms of access to information.The order lists out what needs to be disclosed, and it's a pretty long list. Basically "all documents" relating to each of the key charges.
Separately, the judge noted that the "Record of Case" document, which the Crown (with the FBI) used to argue for extradition wasn't up to proper legal standards in that it did not provide the necessary info to support extradition.
She also found the "Record of Case", the document which made the argument for extradition, did not currently meet the legal requirements. She said the FBI was under an "obligation of candour" to provide any evidence which could impact on the court's judgment of whether the extradition threshold had been met - and no information had been provided to support FBI claims. The document "did not comply", she said.Basically, this is the final ruling on this issue. The New Zealand government and the FBI can't appeal it any higher and now have to actually let Dotcom and his lawyers see the evidence against him. What a concept.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: discovery, evidence, extradition, fbi, kim dotcom, new zealand
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
NZ. I'm glad I live here if they're battling the US's.... ...Wait, what's a good word to describe the US's actions in this case? Asshattery? Douchebaggery? Foolhardishness? ...Idiotic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, wait, that's offensive to actual tinpot dictators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i like arsehattery, personally (body part, not donkey. no americanisms for you.). evil AND stupid.
thing to remember, of course, is that our (NZ) government, or at least those bits under the Prime Minister and National Party's control, are going along with said arsehattery. at least the Courts take the responsibilities of their jobs seriously.
one branch of three working well is an improvement on most places, it seems.
now if only the governor would actually do their damn job we could properly disentangle the executive and the legislature and perhaps get them working again.
(the current arrangement has the exectutive mostly chosen by a combination of cronyism and what amounts to bribery. exactly the situation the restrictions on who can be chosen for those posts was designed to Prevent, but the GG's habit of picking the PM based on who can get majority support in parliament (ie, the leader of the largest coalition, which is a nonsense concept in it's own right when you realise that the legislature is supposed to be a single entity made of individuals, not a 'government' and an 'opposition'.) and then just accepting whoever the PM wants as ministers. the ministerial positions are sold for coalition support to force through bad laws (which Should be rejected) and to form large enough coalitions to get the leader of the largest party within said coalition the PM's spot. It's stupid. would Almost be better to just promote the top level of the bureaucracy up to the ministerial posts. Almost.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Foolhardishness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bullying, cowardly, ignorant and ludicrous also work well individually and when put together.
Also, inane, foolish, desperate and with anger control issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
aka - American Exceptionalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not to take away from the US gov't tinpot assbaggery (can we come to a consensus on that?), which is epic, but the raid was approved of and implemented by NZ gov't. Without NZ gov't complicity, this wouldn't have happened.
That being said, your judicial system seems quite respectable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
with This government? i wouldn't even guarantee it wasn't their idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMAGINE THAT!
Imagine that: being able to tell the Fascist,
"No, you show me YOUR papers!"
COMBB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that puts to rest some fears i had about the consequences of the removal of the Monarch themselves (usually represented by the privy council) being removed as final court of appeal, too.
(another major change snuck through and only announced after the fact. mostly because our government got sick of LOSING when cases made it that far. hehe.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We simply didn't give up our claim to the monarchy when we stopped being subordinate to Britain.
(entertainingly, there IS a Kingdom of New Zealand. ... it's not the same thing as the Country of New Zealand, as it contains a few other random odd bits and pieces in the area as well.)
It's more a case of the British Monarchy collecting titles than of NZ borrowing the monarch.
(and we Could have a separate monarch. it raises SERIOUS legitimacy issues for the entire government if said monarch is not a descendent of Queen Victoria though. and there's a bunch of treaties with other commonwealth dominions about changing the succession laws. it can be done, but there's a few other things that have to be sorted out if it is... (basically amounts to them all making the same changes at the same time. that's why it was such a big deal recently when the succession laws were changed to no longer give male heirs priority over female heirs. EVERY country in personal union under the queen had to agree to it for it not to cause issues. (more in the 'oh, God, now we've got to untangle THIS mess because someone CHANGED SOMETHING!' sort than the actual Problem sort.))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
muwahahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and republicanism... blech.
you know how bad our parliament is already, right?
now imagine that, except that the same force which create it ALSO apply to the head of state.
the monarchy serves at Least one purpose (i'd argue it serves more, but even most republicans can see this one): while it exists, no other entity can attain ultimate moral authority within the country. no coup can attain true legitimacy unless it has the support of the monarchy ( not the nebulous 'crown' but the monarch themselves) And the people.
... it's been too long since i read it, so i'm not explaining so well.
now, if we could get rid of Parliament, THAT i could get behind. well, if someone had a better idea to replace it, anyway. ... or at least the current lot who either benefit from how things work or are stuck on 'tradition' and reform the system somewhat.
heck, i could make a case for ending the union on the basis that if we had our own monarch who actually had to LIVE here and who's livelihood depended on the country doing well they might actually be motivated to stomp on the insanity and bad ideas that come out of parliament, rather than rubber-stamping them. (the current system requiring a majority to form a coalition results in 'we'll help you pass your stupid-bad-idea law if you help us pass our stupid-bad-idea law' agreements being more common than they otherwise would be, for one thing. why do they even NEED a coalition? the monarch appoints whoever of the available candidates is best for each ministerial job and otherwise parliament as a whole is a single entity. if you try to pass a law and can't pass it it's a BAD LAW, not a sign that the system doesn't let you govern properly. i don't know where the idea that a sub-set of parliament which can't just pass whatever the hell it want's is a Bad thing came from... that particular bit of stupid will never make sense to me.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it's kind of astounding how many problems and abuses could have been avoided here simply by going with a Feudal model (which all the random weirdness actually would have fit into) rather than trying to be all modern and democratic... (even if the various feudal sub-entities had been required to be constitutional-whatevers in their own rights.)
... ... NZ is weird. heh.
no, our problem here is that we had a few bad governors followed by actually having a parliament and the governors then abdicating all responsibility. while the monarchy's powers in Practice are fairly limited here, all the documentation actually leaves it open for them to, if they have enough personal power (which NO governor general has had, to my knowledge, though that has nothing to do with the post itself), actually run the place as an absolute monarchy in every way but the budget. requires a couple of cludges and work-arounds here and there, but still. (and all it would really take to get popular support for such a move would be for the current monarch/governor to Actually Say No (which they're SUPPOSED TO DO) when parliament attempts to make yet another dick move.)
also: NZ's parliament only has one house. this would be FINE if the GG actually did their job, as a lot of the monarch's powers here are a lot of the various things an 'upper house' would normally do (the rest being the responsibility of parliament).
the Westminster system isn't actually about the separation of powers at ALL, to our detriment, leading to Parliament having usurped, in practice if not in name, most of the power of the monarch these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suspect the FBI will just refuse outright, and apply pressure diplomatically to get the NZ courts to wake up and realize their mistake.
Extradition hearings shouldn't require full disclosure of evidence. It seems like the judges there are grandstadning and going way past the legal requirements. It's almost like, well, someone has been giving them tips.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Under New Zealand law, extradition is governed by the Extradition Act of 1999 and any bilateral treaty in place.1 The United States and New Zealand entered into an extradition treaty in 1970.2 That treaty lists thirty-two offenses for which subjects can be extradited; criminal copyright infringement is not one of them. However, under New Zealand�s Extradition Act, section 101B, someone may also be extradited for offenses that carry a penalty of not less than one year in the requesting country and involves conduct that would be criminal had it occurred in New Zealand and carries a similar penalty. Extradition of suspects indicted but not convicted require an arrest warrant and any accompanying depositions.
Here, the extradition hearing is likely to hinge on whether the offenses Dotcom has been charged with are offenses in New Zealand that would carry a similar penalty. Admittedly, the primary operation of Megaupload presents a novel set of facts for criminal liability of copyright infringement even in the US, but the indictment also alleges a number of the defendants personally uploaded infringing works to the service, which, by itself, could be sufficient to constitute an extraditable offense under New Zealand law."
It seems that the NZ court's primary duty is to determine whether the offenses charged in the US are also chargeable offenses in NZ. On its face, that seems to imply only a judicial review of the statutes and evidence of violations. I see no inherent right for Dotcom to "face is accuser" anywhere other than during the actual criminal proceeding. In essence, an extradition hearing is more like a grand jury than an actual trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
i would have said it is about whether Kim is likely to get a fair trial. if he hasn't been made fully aware of all charges and all 'evidence' used to make those charges, how can he defend himself, regardless of where he appears in court? would you be happy to be whisked off to somewhere else and put on trial before knowing what you had done wrong, how you had done wrong or how to dispute the charges against you? the chances of you finding any evidence to aid your defense would vary between extremely slim and none at all if you are already banged up in jail!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as charges and evidence goes, Dotcom is well aware of the content of the indictment. Evidence held by the US Attorney is subject to the discovery process, which is governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Again, there's no basis for a NZ judge to believe that Dotcom would't have full access once the criminal phase begins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Talk to lawyers from other countries that have dealt with both US legal system and their own criminal, common, mixed or civil law systems before you take as 'fact' that statement of how the US legal system (which includes the judiciary) is
As for the evidence held by the US. That is now subject to absolute questioning of authenticity since it is unlawfully possessed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an American citizen I have one word.
LooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL
If you said fairer than most I could believe it, but the most, you got to be kidding, even the honesty-o-meter puts the US well behind others countries.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/David-R.-Francis/2011/0211/Is-honesty-waning-in-Am erican-business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: �the US judiciary is regarded as the most impartial, fair and accessible judiciary in the world.�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Methinks you watch too much Law & Order...
"The notion that a foreign court would hold that Dotcom wouldn't get a fair trial in the US is laughable."
Actually the NZ courts seem to be thinking just that thanks to the ongoing antics of the FBI and DoJ, but nobody's laughing.
"Evidence held by the US Attorney is subject to the discovery process, which is governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Again, there's no basis for a NZ judge to believe that Dotcom would't have full access once the criminal phase begins."
Have you forgotten that the FBI has specifically requested that the data that on MegaUpload's seized servers be deleted? The same data Dotcom's team want access to so they can prepare their defence? Does that sound like "full access" to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It isn't, it really and truly isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Crime and punishment : Cardassians
Under Cardassian law, guilt was confirmed prior to Court proceedings � the trials themselves served only as a way to demonstrate the wrongdoing of the defendants and to illustrate the consequences of their alleged criminal behavior. Defendants were provided with legal counsel merely to help them "concede" the "wisdom" of the state's judicial process, as well as help them to admit guilt and express "proper" remorse. Cardassian judicial penalties were usually severe: in at least some cases, the courts had already scheduled the accused's execution before the trial began.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree wholeheartedly.
There is no need for accused people (or their lawyers) to see evidence against them.
If there were innocent, they wouldn't be accused, right?
If I was accused of a crime I would not mind being shipped to another country to face charges without seeing the evidence against me. I am sure I will get to see it at the fair trial I am sure to get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Remember, you don't extradite because he is guilty, you extradite because he is charged. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you are no expert on the law, surely you can at least read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely, soverign states have no reason to have any form of due process when handing over people to other states.
And regardless, if you are accused of a crime, you should unquestioningly allow yourself to be transported to another nation and stand trial there.
Allowing the accused to see the evidence against him or her just gets in the way of Justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
the NZ high court is saying that their court system should no longer just rubber stamp an extradition request simply because thats the way they used to do it. they have set the current standard to require that there actually be evidence to support the charges. if there is, they will extradite. if there is not, no extradition.
its really not that difficult a concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And to be charged, you have to have proof, boy.
If New Zealand authorities showed up at your door and said you had been boiling imported koala bears alive and thus, would be extradited to NZ for trial, wouldn't you say "Where's your proof?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
but...
yeah, that'd just be a cruelty to animals charge, which is significant, rather than a 'harming endangered species' type charge, which...
...
...
well, it's not considered as serious as molesting children, i suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Kangaroos and Emus though... now they are just yum!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just sayin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, go NZ judges!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are some in NZ.
I saw them on Animal Planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Balance of probabilities and/or reasonable doubt is irrelevant. Procedural fairness and the rights of the accused are first and foremost no matter what the USA think or fantasise about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I mean, really? If they have to show him the evidence, he might be able to defend against it! How would that be fair to the DoJ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course the DOJ don't want him to see the evidence because they don't want him to be able to defend himself against it. It would be unfair and unlawful to deprive someone to see the evidence and then defend themself of the evidence made against them but then in the eyes of the DOJ it is lawful to deprive someone of that exact same right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean like the **AA to the FBI?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait what? So Afghanistan can press charges against you based on shady evidence that is not disclosed but you should not be able to see what you fight against because its extradition? No srsly, what kind of logic is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know what is the legal status on this, but that sounds like bullshit to me. Basically, what you are saying is that due process doesn't apply to extradition cases.
What you are saying is that if, let's say, China wants to extradite you, they should just stage a world-class hissy-fit and demand your extradition. And then, the US (assuming you are American) would just dump you in China, because that is the neighbourly thing to do*.
Is this what you want? Or is your hate of Megaupload such that you have become blind to reason?
* Note that this is highly unlikely to happen, since China HAS staged a world-class hissy-fit over the Dalai Lama, and the US flat-out refused to extradite him. Oh, and China had "proof" too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If China has an extradition treaty, and they indicate you for a crime, in good form, then the extradition generally should be good to go. I agree there needs to be at least a summary disclosure of the general information on the case (and perhaps disclosure of the key highlights of the evidence), but this isn't the time or the place for full evidence disclosure. He's not facing the NZ courts, he is suppose to be facing the US courts, after all.
Can you imagine if evidence is released at this point which is later ruled not to be valid for the case in the US? Would that then make the extradition appealable?
It seems like a pretty obvious thing to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
but a real case in NZ against someone the *AA's dont like- not one question should be raised & just ship 'em off...
okay then....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This makes no sense to me, but, again, I don't know the intricacies of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The FBI's lack of disclosure is not "good form".
By your own logic, you've proven the point, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just because a county has a treaty does not exclude their higher laws from voiding that treaty in specific circumstances.
Also you are hypocritical since it seems it is ok for the USA to void treaties but not any other country? Since the USA has voided their reciprocity treaties of law enforcement with NZ by removing evidence without authority. Hmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
nevermind that said 'rules' seem to go out the window when the individual in question is not a citizen of the USA. (and the rules when you Are apparently now include the President being able to order you assassinated with no further proceedings involved, unless i misunderstood.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Next you'll tell me 'good form' means they throw a hissy fit in a gentlemanly manner, only to then execute you as soon as you enter China, because you saw more than you should've seen, or you're a human rights activist, or you're the Dalai Lama.
The world you live in would be utterly retarded, and one I would rather see burn than anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How does one get indicated for a crime? Seems to me that would be entrapment...
On the other hand, if I were INDICTED, I would still have the right to fight the extradition order, and while IANAL, that usually means among the other things already pointed out, that they charging party has to show that they have enough (legally obtained)evidence to support a prima facie case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/sarcasm off/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
diplomatic pressure won't affect the courts much. less than internal pressure from the public in the other direction, at least.
and they Cannot afford to be seen as puppets of the crown, as the risk of that was Exactly why the general public were Against the removal of the monarch/privy council as the highest court of appeal in favour of the internal high court. the government of the day rammed it through Anyway, (sick of loosing cases that actually got that far when they pulled stupid shit, basically.), but the High Court loses all legitimacy the moment it starts being swayed by Anything other than evidence and the law as written at the time of the event.
and with it would fall the government which was influenceing it.
the current government here is Already in a precarious position, being known mostly for not having a valid plan and for outright lying to the public over and over again. (whatever idiot came up with the idea of claiming that Raising GST (a consumer Sales Tax, which is a regressive tax, hits those with a lower income much harder) and Lowering Income Tax (a progressive tax, in this case lowered most for the richest people) would somehow leave the Average New Zealander better off should be shot. not least because they were using the 'average income' as a basis for that. ... the average income which is about double what at LEAST half the population makes. ... let's not even get into the nonsense that is the claims about asset sales.)
the New Zealand population is usually pretty laid back about stuff, but when you actually get them riled up (and this case is doing it) they tend to react quite significantly... and often in strange ways. (why riot when you can drive a tractor up parliament's steps and block the door with it? how exactly do you respond to the situation of the Highschool Students getting so pissed off with the constant disruption caused by disputes between the government and teachers that large numbers of said Students walk out on the school across the country at once? they didn't just go home, either, but mostly stayed in large groups being very obvious. (catching most officials completely by surprise and sort of in support of the teachers but mostly in support of getting their Classes back onto some sort of regular schedule. ring-leaders were a mix of the more disruptive and disreputable sorts and those who are normally the most well behaved model students. hilariously, at my own school at the time, a lot of the teachers knew it was going to happen. the principle, who the students generally agreed was rubbish, either didn't have a clue or had no idea how bad it was going to be)
then there's protest marches half the length of the country or so, and if you go back a bit actual riots and the like.
the whole anti-nuclear thing too. seriously, do you really expect a country that was willing to give up the protection offered by a treaty with the US against the (far more real and worrying possibility at the time than the US's worries about a communist 'domino effect') possibility of a resurgent Japanese empire in the name of a Principle (one adopted, hilarious, by ACCIDENT originally, though it proved too popular to be easily abandoned after the fact) and go so far as to forbid said country's ships (specifically the nuclear armed ones) entry to it's ports as well as the use of nuclear power in the country at all and has resisted all attempts to break that stance since, is going to Accept, no matter what it's government claims, such an offence on something far more concrete and immediate?
go back about a hundred years now and you got actual wars. it's far enough in the past that it's unlikely to happen again, but not so far that people don't remember it as an option.
and that's before even getting INTO the legalities and the idea of a fair hearing. nevermind JUSTICE.
Justice must be swift, fair, and precise, neither punishing the innocent nor freeing the guilty, though letting the occasional guilty man free is better than punishing an innocent. likewise, there's a distinct limit to how much precision and fairness can be set aside for swiftness, but past a point a lack of swiftness leaves justice unserved.
there is nothing fair, just, Or Legal, about what you suggest. At All.
it is, in fact, the sort of thing wars are fought over, were it not for the large ocean in between and massive power difference between the nations in question.
... ... ok, this rant got sort of out of hand. oh well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not at all, I agree 100% with what you are stating and have this same argument with a lot of US Attorneys who are too caught up in their broken legal system, cannot see the forest from the trees, have an apathetic tolerance of the broken separation of powers that is the US court/executive/legislature that they cannot abide a sovereign state where that separation actually exists (jealousy maybe?) and hate how they cannot BUY courts and independent authorities like they can in the Republic (and never the democracy) that is the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Extradition hearings shouldn't require full disclosure of evidence. It seems like the judges there are grandstadning and going way past the legal requirements. It's almost like, well, someone has been giving them tips."
That's cute. When one of us ACs on the other side of the issue says anything like this you say where's the proof that someone told the judge how to rule or no way was their a mistake the judge followed the law. But when a judge makes a ruling you don't like, well... they are wrong and need to have their mistake corrected by outside influences and someone must've gotten to them and persuaded them to rule that way.
The hypocrisy is strong in you, AC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You obviously didn't read the article, boy.
It's not "full" disclosure, but the FBI has to show SOMETHING!
"It's almost like, well, someone has been giving them tips."
"Tips" that the FBI DOESN'T have any evidence?
Seems obvious from the beginning...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It seems that the Anonymous Coward is condoning an illegal action, which would break extradition law.
It's not surprising coming from such a criminal Anonymous Coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Full disclosure, no.
Evidence that the actions in question were criminal and not civil...yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The NZ court didn't say that it does. What they're saying is that enough evidence has to be presented to support the claim that the accused committed an extraditable offense according to NZ law, and that this hasn't been done.
Personally, I assume that the amount of evidence required to meet this threshold depends on the exact case, though, so saying that extradition "shouldn't require disclosure of all the evidence" cannot possibly be compatible with justice in all cases. I'm not saying this is one of those cases -- I don't know. That's for a NZ court to decide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or something like the TPP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My vote for most insightful comment of the week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Could it be that Mike will make it to the insightful/funny comments of the week before even commenting? 8D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
Abbott And Costello 13 X 7 is 28
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oh
I don't think he started the "making it so public" - that would have begun with the use of military style tactics to arrest him and continued with the press announcements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: oh
but nothing like on the scale the US would like, true. and given the number and extremity of stuff ups in this case, the end point would probably be the same. heh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@3
your an idiot #3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @3
But I'm not a DA or AG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @3
Isn't it great to NOT be a US citizen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @3
oh, the irony....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @3
though they often produce indistinguishable results, it's true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm pretty sure the coked-up overpaid execs in the recording/movie industry are feeling like "the man".
However I'm equally sure the industry doesn't generate the capital to be anything but a tool for "the man".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yes, I am an American strongly disagreeing with the US Justice Department and applauding the actions of a foreign sovereign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:39am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:39am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
love it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: love it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: love it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: love it
(other than that i know nothing on the subject, but meh *shrugs*)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: love it
Though what most people don't understand is that the defence of Sovereign Immunity only applies to the actual citizens of that sovereignty.
Foreign entities can sue the USG to their hearts content in other jurisdictions and in the US itself and the USG has to defend itself fully as a standard respondent.
In other words.. The US people can be shafted civilly by their government, but foreigners can't be that easily. Though it seems they can be called terrorists nowadays instead *eyeroll*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: love it
Germany is great for this kind of thing their laws are just marvelous, he just can't sue in the UK or France since those 2 countries have very strong interest in the matter.
But Mr. Dotcom could also sue in NZ, I am sure those people in the MPAA and RIAA have representatives in those places and they could be held responsible, since this is the same game the MAFIAA is playing ignoring the infringers and going for everybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: love it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: love it
This would then entail that either the USG pays what it owes or assets of the USG in the jurisdiction can be frozen and liquidated.
This hypothetical situation is not in reality unusual to at least get to the situation of the court threatening the possibility. Ego and negative publicity via MSM in jurisdiction etc normally makes the offending country pay up to avoid a publicity nightmare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: love it
I mean, they seem to be doing everything they can to generate More of it, as is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
has decent odds of losing them the vast majority of their allies, actually.
...
possibly including Canada.
depends on a bunch of stuff i don't really know about, but a LOT of the US's allies have closer ties with us than them, ya know?
'course, the nature of the situation is that it'd have to be a group effort, as i don't think any of them would be willing to be the first to do it by themselves.
... side effect of being a western, commonwealth, democratic (however dysfunctional representative democracy may be, NZ's one of the better examples of it) 'capitalist' nation with no strategic resources (save claims to large parts of Antarctica which the US refuses to recognize anyway, and being the main access point to said continent... but going to war with us, or something of that nature, would be the only way to Lose that access anyway... seriously, there is NOTHING worth having here that wouldn't be destroyed in the process of taking the place by military force... and NZ's terrain is A: damn near impossible to defend (our government's attitude towards our navy is INSANE) and B: almost as hard to secure once you've captured it. ... mountains and the bush are kind of hard to secure... then there's the fiords (and yes, that's spelled right) and the fun of active volcanoes just for giggles... and 3000 dollar cruise-missiles built from off the shelf civilian parts...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's because we actually like, trust, respect and have a HUGE history (ANZAC for example) with New Zealand. Yeah we like to tease each other but other than the weird accent ;) we are very similar culturally and we both don't take crap when it comes to the crunch.
I'd also be one of the first volunteers in any military action against any invaders of New Zealand, and I know a lot of soldiers past and present who would not take a moments hesitation in taking on the Ice-cream soldiers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh please, your regular army is roundly derided as feckless international cowards.
From the NZ Herald:
"Hammett said anecdotal evidence suggested that disillusionment was a major factor in the infantry's problems in keeping its soldiers.
In Afghanistan, where American, British and Canadian counterparts were aggressively used against the enemy, the restriction of Australian infantry to the protection of its reconstruction task force had drawn adverse comment and questions from the international media.
"The restrictions placed on deployed elements ... have at times made Australian infantrymen ashamed of wearing their Australian uniform and regimental hat badge," Hammett said.
He said that at the combat coalface, Canberra's claims to be a staunch ally of the US were dismissed as political rhetoric. While American, British and Canadian soldiers laid their lives on the line, Australian infantry appeared to do little more than act as interested spectators.
Despite mutual diplomatic accolades, Australia's contributions to both Iraq and Afghanistan had been derided and scorned by soldiers and officers of other nations more vigorously engaged in combat."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You stated, "Oh please, your regular army is roundly derided as feckless international cowards."
Then you quote a piece that says Australian infantrymen are ashamed of wearing the uniform/badge because of said restrictions placed upon them.
Basically, what this means, since you obviously didn't get it, is that those Australians are indeed willing to put their lives on the line and are not cowards, however, they do have to follow orders, and some orders placed upon them are restricting what they can or can't do and what actions they can or can't take part in.
This, again to put simply for you, means that they are very much now "feckless international cowards".
Also, the Afghanistan war is very much a U.S. problem/war and the reasons for being there have seemed to change as needed to keep the war going. So, a reasonable person should see the Australians limiting their part as a rational thing, putting the lives of their own countrymen before the need to help the U.S. continue on their tirade to rage war left and right. War on drugs, war on piracy, war on blah blah freaking blah. (And I say that last bit as a U.S. citizen.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And again, with the cheap shot at the Australians. If you don't like someone, that's fine. Your entitled to your opinion, but at least be man enough to stand by it and state it flat out.
Then again, what do I expect from another AC who doesn't like what was said by G Thompson, thus the cheap shot aimed at him (and his fellow countrymen) but an insult that he's not even man enough to stand behind.
Is it no wonder you aren't taken seriously and people point out the hypocrisy on the part of yourself and other ACs who say similar things on a regular basis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Why do you think the article talks about the shame the soldiers feel? They know that the soldiers in the other countries combat missions mock them as being cowards for avoiding harm's way."
I don't know, it could be interpreted by different people differently. You think it's because the soldiers feel shame as being mocked as cowards by others. I think it mentions that bit because the soldiers might feel ashamed at not being able to do more, however they are following the orders and restrictions placed upon them.
Either way, it DOES NOT support what you implied/stated.
Also, as G Thompson has noted, and which I yet again am forced to point out, that little wiki piece you're attempting to use to back up your comments is again not actually backing them up.
For instance, "Australia currently has no conscription." That is within the first few lines on the article.
Secondly, if you actually read it, while conscription has been put to vote and passed, no Australians have been conscripted and sent to fight outside of Australian territories. (Which backs up what G Thompson said, that the only Australians to fight alongside British, US, and NATO personnel have been doing so of their own volition. Meaning they volunteered to do so. Which again, shows just who might be suffering from "English isn't their first language". I'll give you a hint, it's you. That or you just suck at reading and reading comprehension, as well as basic understanding of how to make a point and then actually make sure the proof presented to support your point does indeed support it, rather than prove you wrong. You're doing G Thompson's and my work for us. Shooting down your own points with evidence you yourself are presenting. Hilarious does not even begin to cover such foolishness.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Why do you think the article talks about the shame the soldiers feel? They know that the soldiers in the other countries combat missions mock them as being cowards for avoiding harm's way."
I don't know, it could be interpreted by different people differently. You think it's because the soldiers feel shame as being mocked as cowards by others. I think it mentions that bit because the soldiers might feel ashamed at not being able to do more, however they are following the orders and restrictions placed upon them.
Either way, it DOES NOT support what you implied/stated.
Read what I said :
"Oh please, your regular army is roundly derided as feckless international cowards."
The article then describes how they are viewed as cowards by the other fighting forces. Seriously, are you really so desperate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that; according to Wikipedia, conscripts in the Australian army did fight and die in Vietnam:
"15,381 conscripted national servicemen served from 1965 to 1972, sustaining 202 killed and 1,279 wounded.[70] In addition there were six Australians listed as missing in action, although these men are included in the list of Australians killed in action and the last of their remains were finally located and returned to Australia in 2009."
'scuse me, but you have some shit on your face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That article is talking about the ROE and other hugfest type restrictions that have been placed on soldiers that your Special forces have stated "are the best in the world" and are up there with the British SAS.
Though I have to also laugh at the hypocrisy of the whole article when you actually have been and seen the absolute bullshit that US soldiers need and require.
Oh and EVERY single Aust and NZ soldier is and has been an actual volunteer and always has been in every single war that we have fought alongside British, USA and NATO personnel in the history of both Aust/NZ. Can you say the same about American soldiers?
If you are the type of American (and I know for a fact your personality type is not a real indication of most intelligent Americans) that would be on the other side of this hypothetical declaration of war, I for one feel even more confidant about partaking in it.. Though there could be an ethical quandary of not feeling good about defeating a useless and incompetent adversary, but Oh well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
NZ troops were quite happy under similar restrictions, to my understanding.
'course, that was due to a combination of the war in question generally being considered to be a dumb idea and the fact that helping with the rebuild and NOT being party to the original destruction tends to lead to the locals being quite friendly.
there's a lot of places you can go where US soldiers would be spat upon (well, were it not for the risk of them shooting you, legality be damned) while NZ troops are greeted with smiles and gifts.
... being the 'good cop' has it's advantages.
(also, the Australian and New Zealand practice of pacifying an area by way of what amount to less brutal versions of the old Japanese sword-hunts is generally a HELL of a lot more effective than the US method of arming everyone who even MIGHT be on their side with better weapons. tends to lead to a situation where they can turn things over to local police types a heck of a lot quicker, too.)
... this is less a specific reply than thoughts in response to the entire comment thread to this point.
(also, seriously? who the hell thinks Australian troops are cowards? I've heard that of US troops often enough, though it's not the Most common derogatory statement about them, but Australians? really? *sigh*)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Though looking at his reply below he himself cannot understand English and never read the full Wikipedia article about conscription he actually quoted below especially about the parts where we no Conscript has EVER fought alongside UK/US/Etc troops only volunteers. Conscripts were used in Vietnam yes but our High Court stated it was unlawful and they never actually fought with the Yanks (Though the AU SAS and Volunteer forced did)
anyway I'm off home and then to bed. Have fun ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, I have only noted that your regular army is regarded by other fighting armies in Afghanistan as cowards for hiding out in a safe region performing domestic chores instead of going where the action is and fighting. You are really dense.
I have no further wish to reply to his idiocy.
Chicken
Though looking at his reply below he himself cannot understand English and never read the full Wikipedia article about conscription he actually quoted below especially about the parts where we no Conscript has EVER fought alongside UK/US/Etc troops only volunteers. Conscripts were used in Vietnam yes but our High Court stated it was unlawful and they never actually fought with the Yanks (Though the AU SAS and Volunteer forced did)
anyway I'm off home and then to bed. Have fun ;)
So conscripts were NEVER used, except of course in Vietnam which was declared unlawful by the High Court which means that they were never were there? Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm going to say this because G Thompson isn't up for playing with you. But you did indeed note such a thing, but you noted it in a manner that was purely your opinion. No such proof has been presented to back up your claim that other armies fighting in Afghanistan view the Australians as cowards. Your "citation" presents no proof to support your claims.
Secondly, the dense one here is yourself. That remark you made was after G Thompson basically said he'd fight for New Zealand and so would others. You basically called him and his countrymen cowards, then tried to spin that into you not saying it but that's what others have said and feel.
Again, be a man, state what you feel. But don't try and paint your opinion as fact, at least not without proof supporting it.
"Chicken"
Thanks for proving his point, he's doing the smart thing by not replying to your stupidity. And you're proving you're an idiot who only wants attention and to insult others.
Also, it's worth noting that Vietnam wasn't actually a war. It was and still is considered a conflict, as such G Thompson's statement stands true. No Aussies have been conscripted to fight in any wars (outside of Australian related matters and territories), many however have volunteered to fight in wars alongside other forces. (With the one exception being Vietnam, which as I pointed out wasn't an actual war.)
You're grasping at straws and looking more and more foolish. Just give it up. You insulted G Thompson and his countrymen. You got called out on your opinion, and now are being ignored. It happens. Move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're grasping at straws and looking more and more foolish.
You are kidding, right? I refute G Thompson's assertion that no conscript has ever fought in a war by documenting the deaths of more than 200 Australians and wounding of many hundred more and you pull the "technically it was not an actual war" card? Who is grasping at straws and looking foolish? It is truly pathetic that you would dishonor those who sacrificed so much by trying to diminish their service to their country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's cute though how hung up you are. First you insult them, then you try and act shocked at me pointing out the facts and say I'm dishonoring their sacrifice.
Secondly, I didn't dishonor their sacrifice, I merely pointed out that it wasn't a war. Not sure how that dishonors anyone.
And the one with shit on his face is still you. Seriously, your original point failed and so have your others since. You're still wrong and the facts prove you wrong.
Here's what you do, stop replying rather than grasping at straws to try and spin things so I look like the fool/bad one. Calls Australians soldiers cowards then says I'm dishonoring them by pointing out that Vietnam wasn't actually a war. Lol. Man, I love you ACs. You're such hypocrites. And hypocrites never cease to amuse me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
so sayeth the AC....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wasn't referring to myself because I'm not a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I simply pointed out that Australian soldiers were being mocked for cowardice. I attached a citation from the NZ Herald to back it up. I don't know why you equate the reporting of that fact with it automatically being my opinion.
Your position on the Vietnasm issue is simply untenable. At issue was whether Australian conscripts had ever fought in a war. G Thompson trumpeted the claim that it had never happened. I pointed out that it happened in Vietnam. 15,000 of his conscripted countrymen fought; more than 200 died and 1500 were wounded. While you may win the semantics game, I believe that those conscripted soldiers believed that they were fighting a war at the behest of their country. Their courage and sacrifice was no less because it was an "undeclared" war. Their role ought not be diminished by you on a mere technicality. Interestingly, G Thompson hasn't returned to defend his claim. I'll be interested to see whether he returns to claim victory because conscripted soldiers from his country fought, bled and died in an "undeclared" war as opposed to the "real thing". I doubt that he will as he's not as desperate and pathetic as you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
15,381 conscripted national servicemen served from 1965 to 1972, sustaining 202 killed and 1,279 wounded.[70] In addition there were six Australians listed as missing in action, although these men are included in the list of Australians killed in action and the last of their remains were finally located and returned to Australia in 2009.
Hey, you should be proud. At least this time they were fighting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Australia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
World War 2 was started by a genocidal mad man.
World War 3...... will be started over copyrights.
Sigh... I don't want to live on this planet any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Australia's a toss up depending on it's government and public sentiment at the time ('Help NZ almost instinctively' vs 'getting in a war with the US is not really healthy' basically), the UK seems to be putting serious effort into being a US... well, not quite a Puppet... client state? not much hope of help there. I don't think Indonesia likes us... India would probably have no reason to get involved...
seriously, NZ vs the US? with our navy and air force basically gutted of actual combat capacity and the vast majority of our cities being on the coast i don't really see how we'd win such a war, or even drag it out all that long.
become a quagmire after the fact? sure. but not actually defend the place. (i've heard some surprisingly cheap, logical, Viable ideas for defending NZ properly... but they all come at the expense of Any power-projection. ... ... so instead we have a couple of frigates and some dodgy transport ships for an army Designed almost from the ground up purely to serve as auxiliaries for other countries in their wars. ... this isn't even actually helping our allies for mutual gain, or hiring out our troops as mercenaries to keep their experience levels up. it's us paying to send troops to fight other people's battles and wars which we get NOTHING out of. it's stupid!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
First, the disparity between the might of the US military and the NZ military isn't as big of an issue as it may seem. Look at the last two nations we've invaded: Afghanistan and Iran. Both of those has pitiful military forces and no allies, and both of those cost the US dearly to engage in. They demonstrated pretty well that while the US can blow stuff up very well, we cannot operate in manner that is cost-effective enough to sustain an operation against a nation that is not already broken.
Also, if we were to invade a nation like New Zealand, which is not perceived as being a bad actor on the world stage, the US would have a lot of opposition from nations that would otherwise either support the US or stay out of the way. It doesn't matter if those nations like New Zealand or not. The US would be opposed because we would have become an obvious danger to peace-loving nations around the world.
And lastly, the US military has a huge weakness: we cannot operate effectively without access to critical materials that are almost completely under the control of other nations. Rare metals and so forth. Without a constant supply of those, our military would grind to a halt in a matter of months. If those nations were to cut us off, and we were to use the military to force them to give us the stuff, it would be a world war that the US would likely lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
also, i have a hard time seeing the US government NOT going all 'fire AAAALL ze missiles!' on the world if such a war actually reached the point of enemy troops on their soil... and i wouldn't be at all surprised to see them being unwilling to sue for peace under any other circumstances.
yeah, I'm something of a pessimist when it comes to these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have absolutely no doubt that we would in that case. I think the rest of the world knows it as well and so they wouldn't do that. I think a strategy of containment would be more likely.
You don't have to invade a nation to effectively defang it (despite what our military establishment would have us believe).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
h**p://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-must-be-allowed-to-see-fbi-evidence-against-him-court-rules-1 20816/
to get more info than has been posted at techdirt. as the naming of those involved (entertainment industry head execs and US government heads) has been ordered by the court as well, you can bet that the US will either be appealing the decision, even though there is nowhere for it to appeal to or it will be ignoring the NZ court totally. if it complies but deliberately omits relevant information, i suspect there will be severe consequences. the contempt the US is getting for itself worldwide is increasing on a daily basis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
non-extradition of Kim Dotcom.
and... what?
the NZG will do crap-all. the current administration basically Wishes they were the US government.
the courts as a whole deciding that any extradition request by the US will be automatically turned down regardless of any other factors? ... I'm not even sure how that would work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.usip.org/files/MC2/MC2-21-Ch14.pdf
Article 315: Extradition Hearing; is particularly pertinent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Especially since this decision is NOT about the extradition hearing itself since , but about a judicial review of the unlawful procedures (specifically states as unlawful too) that led up to the arrest after an MLA was applied for, and especially after the crown was told NOT to release evidence by a lower court to third parties that under NZ law are classified as victims/witnesses ONLY !
NZ Bill of Rights, Procedural fairness doctrines, and the UNHR take precedence over the MLA and any non equitable procedures that the US DoJ wants.
This is NOT anything like a grand jury situation (or should we call it what a Grand Jury really is - a Star Chamber), the extradition hearings are based on tribunal structures that still have to abide by rules of evidence, procedural fairness, and other judicial rules (bench and otherwise).
The right of an accused to confront their accuser with all relevant material that the accuser has still exists, though admittedly in a less limited way than in a full criminal trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you mean a more limited way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Article 315, paragraph 4 subparagraphs j through l, and paragraph 5 subparagraphs a and b apply.
Further, not sure what bearing a document from the "United States Institute of Peace" has on the matter, but I'm sure you can elaborate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He will come back with a wild theory of why that your interpretation is wrong and how he is right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Standards for extradition should match those for indictment at home.
In other words, to extradite, the rule should basically be "indict, go to country where suspect is and indict again there, then extradite". If not with a higher bar still.
The reason is this: extradition should require a showing of reasonable probability that the prosecution can make its case, and that it could do so under the laws of the country of residence. This is, more or less, the same as the bar for getting an indictment for alleged criminal conduct within that country. So why not make it explicitly so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To New Zealand Goverment & New Zealand Courts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To New Zealand Goverment & New Zealand Courts
our government refused to even consider investigating that when it came up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lola P Gaston
home gardening tips
http://www.gordonwells.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“/sarcasm off/