Basically, the gov't is arguing "this guy is likely a recruiter for al-queada <or however it's spelled>, we should be allowed to kill this terrorist, even though he has US citizenship."
The gov't is getting sued by the ACLU and the CCR because the ACLU and the CCR saw "kill" and "he has US citizenship." and are asking for a standard upon which the gov't tests to see if they should kill you.
My opinion: I'm not with the gov't on this. The guy needs to be tried and found guilty. THEN, the gov't may kill him.
Jup, just like Lauri Love, years of anguish with threats to go to a punitive jail system not aimed at rehabilitation or even simply protection, but designed for punishment and profit.
Of course when US citizens kill people in the UK they just claim diplomatic immunity and flee the country.
How any UK or US politician can stand up now, and call for sanctions against Russia or China or Iran .. beggars belief.
These are the sorts of charades we have been programmed to despise when we see it in our 'enemies' societies, when it happens - but when we are doing it, there is some moral stance that makes it acceptable.
The rule of law is being eroded right before our eyes.
Oh yeah. I forgot about what was done to Habeus Corpus. We are really, really fucked.
I don't think law, justice or even diplomacy are very relevant for most of this case.
1900 days in isolation (human rights violation), falsly accused of rape with the goal to extradite to the US, jailed outside of the US on behalf of the US (but not officially), and just the simple fact that a journalist gets jail time for exposing war crimes.
Yeah, this has nothing to do with law or justice. This is about a handful of people above the law trying to save their *sses. Anything could happen at this point.
Reminds me of when a foreign diplomatic aircraft (Equador) was forced to land in a foreign country (France), because the US thought Snowden might be on board. Remind me of the relevant law please? lol
I said up front that he's a pompous ass, I'm not defending his character.
> Also you don't have to be a US citizen to be charged for a crime by the US government.
You sure about that? I mean, if a non-US citizen commits murder on our shores, fine, charge them, but the espionage act for non-citizens who didn't personally commit any espionage? Really? Shit, even if they did, they're not Americans, you want to extradite every non-American who isn't sufficiently pro-America?
You are having comprehensions. I was indeed referring to the nature of this article, which is Julian's heinous torture and rendition to the United States.
This isn't just 'extradition', any more.
The real free world, i.e. Europe, needs to stand up to this thuggery and do something about it, fast.
UK is showing itself incapable of catching this real attack on free society. With this precedent set - NOBODY is safe, not even one single civilian - to openly discuss the war crimes of our war industry.
If his defense against treason is that he's a foreign agent attacking the US, then he'll rightly end up in a POW prison. So he needs a better defense than that
Would you bet your freedom on that? I haven't seen the dude strolling about in the States...
He's going to pay a big price for his academic experiment. The US government has justifiably killed people over less serious attacks, and citizenship has nothing to do with it. And that's before you get to what has been done without justification (look up Ruby Ridge). When you pick a fight with a giant, you can expect to lose.
Suspected terrorist talking to a lawyer before facing trial and being found not guilty / guilty is much worse TV[1] than Kiefer Sutherland torturing the terrorist to prevent the bomb killing lots of people.
But surely that's the point, that their good faith concerns are unreasonable.
It's completely clear cut - the guy broke into systems that no normal human being would go at. The level of security is irrelevant - if you commence a military act, surely a military response is appropriate, no?
Your points are completely valid but you're missing the view that is brought forward, that he's one of ours, he's not that bad a guy, and doesn't deserve the same as people in gitmo.
I don't agree with the view and I think that all things being equal he should serve a small amount of time in the US, but thats not going to happen. Either he's going to serve a large amount of time in the US (from the perspective of the Brits) or he's not going there.
It's especially interesting for me because this happened before with some inside traders at natwest. It'll be interesting to see if this happens again.
But even Hitler's sham courts gave defendants a chance to reply to the charges. Facebook justice more resembles the Taliban's.
says the US american "military expert". Fact is, the Sharia allows the accused to defend himself. I am not saying that I think the Sharia is good, but linked article contains gusting fear-mongering.
Using your sketchy rationale, one could claim that you are threatening Paulson and have you charged with a threat to kidnap Paulson to put him in Guantanamo Bay.
And in any legal dispute between you and Paulson, you would be incidental roadkill, in view of his deep pockets.
That is why the legal system has semi-reasonable heuristics that govern the range of interpretations that are acceptable.
I am no lawyer, and so can't say anything about a legal opinion. But from a "my way of looking at it" perspective: someone who is actively trying to kill american citizens, and is, meanwhile, preventing himself from being tried by hiding in a foreign country should be stopped. Better for all involved if he's stopped without killing, but stopped either way.
I would draw the comparison to someone holding a hostage at gunpoint. You don't put that person on trial before final judgment comes down.
If you caused enough damage and deaths you will get life in jail, maybe even death penalty. But only after a pissed off jury declares you guilty.
The reason for Gitmo, terrorist claims, etc... is because there are complex international matters that make prosecution difficult. But if you killed people during a malevolent act, you are a criminal and will face justice. There is nothing complex about that, especially if your are a US citizen on US soil.
From what I've read the 'trouble' they can get into is serious prison time. I'm sure for most of these people it's not worth the risk considering how brazen the US government has been recently.
I don't find this particular case all that illustrative. These folks were palling around with known foreign intelligence assets from a country whose government is definitely a hostile aggressor. I'd be more sympathetic to some low-level drug dealer scooped up through parallel-reconstruction. Still, even scum like Carter Page deserve their rights and protections.
The US is sheltering a diplomat(spy?) who negligently ran over and killed a British civilian as we speak, but these guys are the real danger.
reply