SW rant time
-
I'm very unclear, I feel like the idea that laws from anywhere can be applied anywhere must cause logical problems - like let's say that in one country it is a crime to be of religion X. Do they feel that that might apply to them, even if they don't live there or travel there? Laws conflict, nearly everywhere. Almost no law from one country can be used in another without either already existing there or conflicting with a local law. This isn't a trivial problem. The one that prompted this discussion is a huge example... the right to be forgotten directly conflicts with freedom of press and freedom of speech laws in the US. Its' a nice idea, but you can't just take a law from somewhere else and pop it into the legal framework of another place, it doesn't work.
-
Must be key words here. Something about this thread is triggering a lot of traffic.
-
@scottalanmiller I think it has the trappings of a Left vs Right debate. People are passionate about their politics. Power to the State or power to the individual. Are we sovereign or are we subjects. Just my 2 cents.
-
@popester said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller I think it has the trappings of a Left vs Right debate. People are passionate about their politics. Power to the State or power to the individual. Just my 2 cents.
Sort of, except I'm only discussing what the law is, no discussion what what it should be.
-
@scottalanmiller True Dat. Agreed.
-
@penguinwrangler said in SW rant time:
If I post on ML and insult their King, which is a crime in Thailand, I cannot be extradited to Thailand.
If Thailand chose to document this and then ask for your extradition, you can totally be extradited.
Does not mean that the U.S. agency with authority would agree to the extradition request.
-
@jaredbusch said in SW rant time:
@penguinwrangler said in SW rant time:
If I post on ML and insult their King, which is a crime in Thailand, I cannot be extradited to Thailand.
If Thailand chose to document this and then ask for your extradition, you can totally be extradited.
Does not mean that the U.S. agency with authority would agree to the extradition request.
They can ask for anything. They can just ask that you be executed in the US. Prisoners can just ask to be released. You can always ask.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@jaredbusch said in SW rant time:
@penguinwrangler said in SW rant time:
If I post on ML and insult their King, which is a crime in Thailand, I cannot be extradited to Thailand.
If Thailand chose to document this and then ask for your extradition, you can totally be extradited.
Does not mean that the U.S. agency with authority would agree to the extradition request.
They can ask for anything. They can just ask that you be executed in the US. Prisoners can just ask to be released. You can always ask.
I know, but I am clarifying his incorrect statement.
-
@jaredbusch A person in the State of Missouri filed a pro se case against Wal-Mart and ask for 4 Trillion dollars because they made Twinkies so cheap to buy, how could they help but not get fat. He filed his case, i.e. asked for that...and it was promptly thrown out. So I find your statement to be a little bit ridiculous in nature. Most of the time in extradition cases (even between states in the US) the crime has to be serious enough to warrant the time and cost of transporting the offender. Also what a US citizen can be extradited to a foreign country is covered in the Extradition treaty with that nation. So you could conceivably commit a crime in a country and if you get back to the US not be able to be extradited if the treaty doesn't cover that crime.
-
@penguinwrangler said in SW rant time:
@jaredbusch A person in the State of Missouri filed a pro se case against Wal-Mart and ask for 4 Trillion dollars because they made Twinkies so cheap to buy, how could they help but not get fat. He filed his case, i.e. asked for that...and it was promptly thrown out. So I find your statement to be a little bit ridiculous in nature. Most of the time in extradition cases (even between states in the US) the crime has to be serious enough to warrant the time and cost of transporting the offender. Also what a US citizen can be extradited to a foreign country is covered in the Extradition treaty with that nation. So you could conceivably commit a crime in a country and if you get back to the US not be able to be extradited if the treaty doesn't cover that crime.
You clearly stated cannot be extradited and that is not correct.
You most certainly can be.
Of course can does not mean will be.
-
@penguinwrangler said in SW rant time:
Also what a US citizen can be extradited to a foreign country is covered in the Extradition treaty with that nation. So you could conceivably commit a crime in a country and if you get back to the US not be able to be extradited if the treaty doesn't cover that crime.
No extradition treaty needs to be in place for a foreign entity to ask for extradition.
An extradition treaty will instead say that we (the U.S.) agree that if one of our people breaks one of these select laws of yours, that will will send the person to you upon request. Of the 2 treaty documents I skimmed in the past they both also had various clauses that basically said we will only extradite them if we feel like it.
-
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partII-chap209-sec3196
Dont piss the secretary of state off and you will be fine. I think....
-
Woah... where did this thread go? Anyone spin me up on the last 150 posts in a sentence or two? No way I have time to back-read.
-
@tim_g said in SW rant time:
Woah... where did this thread go? Anyone spin me up on the last 150 posts in a sentence or two? No way I have time to back-read.
Summary: "Are US companies bound by the laws of other countries?"
-
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@tim_g said in SW rant time:
Woah... where did this thread go? Anyone spin me up on the last 150 posts in a sentence or two? No way I have time to back-read.
Summary: "Are US companies bound by the laws of other countries?"
That's really the conversation? That's bizarre.
-
@coliver said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@tim_g said in SW rant time:
Woah... where did this thread go? Anyone spin me up on the last 150 posts in a sentence or two? No way I have time to back-read.
Summary: "Are US companies bound by the laws of other countries?"
That's really the conversation? That's bizarre.
Yes, that's where it went. There was a feeling that ML needed to be bound by EU laws for some reason. And it went from there.
-
Let's get back on track...
SPICEWORKS SUUUUUCKS!!!!!
-
@rojoloco said in SW rant time:
Let's get back on track...
SPICEWORKS SUUUUUCKS!!!!!
and more specifically the biased arbitrary actions of some of the mods!
-
-
@nadnerb I like that one.
