# US Law now enforcable in Canada?



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 9, 2005)

*Taken from http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000065.shtml
*

*[font=Arial, Helvetica]No Wonder Most of the World Hates Us[/font]*

   [font=Arial, Helvetica]By Stephen Gordon[/font]

  [font=Arial, Helvetica]Canadian Marc Emery was arrested last week in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He was not charged with any violation of Canadian law, however. You see, Emery is the publisher of the popular Cannabis Culture Magazine, producer of POT-TV, and ran the successful Marc Emery Direct marijuana seed company. The indictment from which the warrant was based (it included two other Emery Seeds employees) was issued the US by a federal Grand Jury as a result of DEA operations, and not because of Canadian law enforcement activities. To be sure, Canadian authorities were quite aware of Emery's activities for years and had never acted to halt them, although he had been arrested on non-related marijuana charges.[/font]

  [font=Arial, Helvetica]The three were charged with conspiracy to manufacture marijuana, conspiracy to distribute marijuana seeds, and money-laundering operations. Emery is currently out on bail awaiting an extradition hearing. It should come as no surprise that the DEA had wished for Emery to stay in Canadian jail until such time (reported as a year or more) as the extradition hearing was concluded. While DEA officials deny any political motivation for the arrests, Emery was the leader of the BC Marijuana Party (BCMP) and their offices were also raided as part of the arrest process.  [/font]

  [font=Arial, Helvetica]Canadians are vocally upset about this situation and have been protesting since the arrest was made. Many are extremely concerned that Emery will be subjected to a draconian possible life sentence if convicted in the United States. In addition to the obvious implications of this expansion of the federal War on Drugs, the arrests raise another important question:  Is Canada a sovereign country or merely the 51st US state?
 [/font]



   [font=Arial, Helvetica]Posted by Shane Cory at August  4, 2005 05:16 PM[/font]


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 9, 2005)

We have an extradition treaty wherein we will extradite a Canadian citizen to the US if they have committed a crime in the US.  The stipulation is that we must also consider it a crime here.

 Emery broke the law, but, due to the political conditions and potential upcoming changes to these laws, the BC police are not enforcing these laws, as they are choosing other areas of focus (organized crime is pretty big there.) 

 [font=Arial, Helvetica] 





> It should come as no surprise that the DEA had wished for Emery to stay in Canadian jail until such time (reported as a year or more) as the extradition hearing was concluded.


 No, it shouldn't.  I would expect that any Canadian citizen would remain on Canadian soil until it was determined that extradition was appropriate by the courts.
[/font] 





> [font=Arial, Helvetica]
> [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]Many are extremely concerned that Emery will be subjected to a draconian possible life sentence if convicted in the United States.[/font]


 Well, not me.  He should have considered the law before he broke it.

 Now, I am one of those that believes that current pot laws are outdated and require some loosening.  However, as it is right now, you cannot ship pot or pot seeds to the US.  That is against the law, both here and in the US.  So, the US wants to apply the law.  Good, let'em I say.  Its their legal right to do so.
 [font=Arial, Helvetica][/font]


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 9, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> We have an extradition treaty wherein we will extradite a Canadian citizen to the US if they have committed a crime in the US. The stipulation is that we must also consider it a crime here.


 By the sounds of things, it was stuff he was doing in Canada that they went after him for, not stuff he did in the US.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 9, 2005)

Here's a more detailed article: http://www.canada.com/vancouver/van...d=d3aa799f-0e0a-45b3-9a56-2ddea3403741&page=1

 He ran a open business, storefront, website, mailing addresses, everything in place.  He sold Maijuana seeds internationally and locally.

 Didn't commit any crime in the US, just shipped there.  I really don't see how the US can claim juristiction, he was in Canada when he broke the law and it should be up to Canadian officials whether or not he gets prosectuted or not.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 9, 2005)

His own country arrested him, right? Case closed.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

Seems like people are looking for (manufacturing) reasons to "hate America" lately.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 9, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> His own country arrested him, right? Case closed.


 Yes, but he wasn't charged with anything under Canadaian law, all the charges laid where from the US.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 9, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Here's a more detailed article: http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=d3aa799f-0e0a-45b3-9a56-2ddea3403741&page=1
> 
> He ran a open business, storefront, website, mailing addresses, everything in place. He sold Maijuana seeds internationally and locally.
> 
> Didn't commit any crime in the US, just shipped there. I really don't see how the US can claim juristiction, he was in Canada when he broke the law and it should be up to Canadian officials whether or not he gets prosectuted or not.


He broke Canadian Law, and was arrested by the RCMP.  According to your article, he is charged in the US with "several drug-related charges, including conspiring to distribute marijuana seeds and launder money."  Given the treaty, should the courts deem extradition appropriate or not, then the law shall prevail either way.

 Critics of the treaty generally argue "that  actions against foreigners violate international law, compromise human rights, and violate national sovereignty." (source)  I counter that the Government of Canada entered into this treaty freely and knowingly, thus, our sovereignty has not been compromised, as we are a willing participant.  Furthermore, the stipulation is that the court shall decide whether or not to grant extradition, presumably upon the discovery of sufficient evidence.  

 I don't think that Emery has a valid complaint here.  "Emery claims to make $3 million a year from selling marijuana seeds online and by mail, along with selling equipment for grow operations, such as fertilizer, lighting, and other products that help people grow plants, according to US officials." (source)

 He broke the law, both in Canada and the US as a profiteering protester.  If, as a protester,  he is unwilling to bear responsibility for his actions, he deserves no sympathy from me.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Seems like people are looking for (manufacturing) reasons to "hate America" lately.


 Maybe, just maybe (I'm going out on a limb here) but people would be just as mad if any other country had placed charges on a Canadian, for things done in Canada.

 I would also imagine that Americans would be a little annoyed if Canada got the FBI to arrest an American, in American, for things done in America that where a crime in Canada but the US wasn't going to lay charges for.

 But to claim people are just manufacturing reasons to hate America everytime your gov't does something that effects other countries in a way that the people of those countries disagree with is a very weak argument.

 Canadians are proud to be Canadians, and want to stay Canadians.  Many Canadians don't want to become even more heavily influenced by the US then we already are.  Having American Law (or any other country's) enforced on Canadian soil is not something we want happening.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

We asked for Canadian help and you guys agreed. Could just as easily refused. If you are going to be mad over this be mad at yourselves. Abiding to mutual agreements is hardly a US abuse of power IMO.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 9, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Maybe, just maybe (I'm going out on a limb here) but people would be just as mad if any other country had placed charges on a Canadian, for things done in Canada.


It can be argued that by shipping illicit substances to the US, Emery broke US law.  So, yes, he was in Canda at the time of the offence.  That doesn't counter the US jurisdictional issue.  By engaging in illegal trade across the 49th, he broke the laws of both countries.



> I would also imagine that Americans would be a little annoyed if Canada got the FBI to arrest an American, in American, for things done in America that where a crime in Canada but the US wasn't going to lay charges for.


See above.  Further, note that the treaty exists.  With all of these countries.  Your argument is with the Canadian Government, not the US for following it.




> Canadians are proud to be Canadians, and want to stay Canadians. Many Canadians don't want to become even more heavily influenced by the US then we already are. Having American Law (or any other country's) enforced on Canadian soil is not something we want happening.


This is absolultely true.  However, it seems to me that if we want to have any type of leverage in having the US honour the various treaties that they have broken (NAFTA, the Boundary Waters Treaty) then it would be responsible of us to uphold them when applicable, don't you think?


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 9, 2005)

He is a Canadian, in Canada, that was acting in Canada and all the evidence is in Canada.

 He should be punished under Canadian law, in a Canadian court.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 9, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> He is a Canadian, in Canada, that was acting in Canada and all the evidence is in Canada.
> 
> He should be punished under Canadian law, in a Canadian court.


I agree.  Upon completion of his sentence, he should be extradited to the US to face charges there, for his crimes committed there, should the extradition courts deem it appropriate under the MLAC treaty stipulations.


----------



## Lisa (Aug 9, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I agree. Upon completion of his sentence, he should be extradited to the US to face charges there, for his crimes committed there, should the extradition courts deem it appropriate under the MLAC treaty stipulations.


 I agree, but Bob's original post says he wasn't charged with violation of any Canadian laws.  Will he be now under pressure from the US government? and if so, is it right we be politically pressured to do so?  Also, and I apologise for my ignorance, but has there ever been a situation before where we have extradicted someone for breaking the law in another country while they were in Canada without prosecuting here first?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 9, 2005)

Nalia said:
			
		

> I agree, but Bob's original post says he wasn't charged with violation of any Canadian laws. Will he be now under pressure from the US government? and if so, is it right we be politically pressured to do so? Also, and I apologise for my ignorance, but has there ever been a situation before where we have extradicted someone for breaking the law in another country while they were in Canada without prosecuting here first?


 It is clear that he violated Canadian law, whether or not those laws are being enforced rigidly at this time is irrelavent. The fact that he broke those laws invokes the right of the US to demand extradition for crimes he committed within the US. Sorry, but this guy is subject to extradition, and it isn't a plot.  It isn't actually necessary to try this gentleman there first.  If the Canadian citizen violated a Canadian law, the Canadian government can simply choose not to prosecute.  This guy should be happy in that case, it means he's already beaten the Canadian charges.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 9, 2005)

I don't believe it is right to arrest someone for breaking the law remotely.  The fact that he sent illegal (under US law) items to the US is moot.  Arrest those buying those items. 

He is in Canada, is a Canadian citizen, and alegedly broke Canadian law by dealing. Looks like an internal Canadian issue to me.  The US should butt out. It's not the US's place to tell Canada what/how to enforce their laws.

Now, it's been said he commited a crime in the US.
Was he here doing it?  Or was he just sending pot through the mail?
If he was here, then I see him as falling within our laws. If he wasn't, then our laws don't apply.

I would hate to think that another nation could demand my butt because I broke their laws, remotely, without being there, and get it.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 9, 2005)

There was a lot of support when various nations announced they'd start arresting 'sex tourists' who travel abroad to have sex with minors. That is, as a U.S. citizen you can be arrested by the U.S., in the U.S., for what you do in Thailand.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 9, 2005)

I disagree with that policy.  I understand the intent, but not the way it works.
If it's legal where you do it (whatever it is) then you shouldn't be at risk when you return home.  I mean, NY drinking age is 21.  Are we going to bust every 19-20 year old who goes to ON where the drinking age is 19?   Should I get a ticket in NY for when I was driving 85 in GA (on a road where it was legal) when the max in NY is 65?

I understand the idea is to do as much damage to the sex trade, but while that punishes 1 party, it does nothing to save the victim, stop future victimization, or solve the problem.

Same thing with the US/Canada drug issue.  Ok, pot's illegal in the US.  Can we also go after someone who sells from Amsterdamn (sp) where it is legal for breaking US laws by sending it here?  SHouldn't we strengthen our border filters and target the buyer?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 9, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I don't believe it is right to arrest someone for breaking the law remotely. The fact that he sent illegal (under US law) items to the US is moot. Arrest those buying those items.
> 
> He is in Canada, is a Canadian citizen, and alegedly broke Canadian law by dealing. Looks like an internal Canadian issue to me. The US should butt out. It's not the US's place to tell Canada what/how to enforce their laws.
> 
> ...


 If he distributes drugs to the US, he is a criminal. He will pay for his crimes in the US. He engaged in an ongoing criminal enterprise to export an illegal controlled substance into the United States, knowing it was illegal to do so, for the intent of making a profit.  

You guys get awful bent out of shape about the marijuana don't you?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 9, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I disagree with that policy. I understand the intent, but not the way it works.
> If it's legal where you do it (whatever it is) then you shouldn't be at risk when you return home. I mean, NY drinking age is 21. Are we going to bust every 19-20 year old who goes to ON where the drinking age is 19? Should I get a ticket in NY for when I was driving 85 in GA (on a road where it was legal) when the max in NY is 65?
> 
> I understand the idea is to do as much damage to the sex trade, but while that punishes 1 party, it does nothing to save the victim, stop future victimization, or solve the problem.
> ...


Your analogy is flawed. If I mail a bomb to my ex-wife in New York, and it blows up killing her there, should I be tried here or there? Answer: Both. The murder took place in New York, so I should be extradited there to stand trial. The fact that I mailed the item from here does not mean the murder took place here. I may have committed a crime here as well, but that will charged seperately, and doesn't change the fact that I committed a crime there as well.

Moreover, if I mailed the bomb from Africa, but it blew up in the US, where do you want me charged? If you were on the receiving end, I can tell you what you'd want in that case. You'd want extradition. 

As far as your Amsterdam analogy, it is flawed as well.  If this gentleman had given pot to US citizens while they were in Canada, it would be different.  He conspired to export a controlled substance INTO the United States, therefore violating US and Canadian law.

The whole issue is about marijuana, it isn't about extradition anyway. Lets just drop the pretense.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 9, 2005)

That is different. Maybe.

If you mailed it from OH to NY, you'd be in violation of postal law, as well as federal and state laws.  Might be a battle over juristiction, but NY would probably get 1st crack.

Now, sending from another nation, makes things more complex. 
Is sending explosives illegal there?
Is there an extradiction treaty in place and is it in effect?

If I travel to Europe, visit a nation with liberal drug laws, and get stoned, should I be arrested when I return home?

I see this issue as the Canadian cops were looking the otherway, waiting on the law to be repealed.  This person took advantage of it, and shipped product to a less "enlightened" nation, where the product is illegal and the law actively enforced. The destination nation then involked treaty and went for his head.

Now, what I wonder is, if Canada decriminalizes pot in the mean time, what happens?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 9, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If he distributes drugs to the US, he is a criminal. He will pay for his crimes in the US. He engaged in an ongoing criminal enterprise to export an illegal controlled substance into the United States, knowing it was illegal to do so, for the intent of making a profit.
> 
> You guys get awful bent out of shape about the marijuana don't you?


 A key point is, he's been doing this for 9 years, openly. It's not like he was hiding.

As to the "You guys get awful bent out of shape about the marijuana don't you?" bit, I'll be honest: I don't have a problem with it.  

Tobacco is legal, and worse for you. Legalize it, tax it, and be done with it.  Let the cops focus on the more pressing issues.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 9, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As far as your Amsterdam analogy, it is flawed as well. If this gentleman had given pot to US citizens while they were in Canada, it would be different. He conspired to export a controlled substance INTO the United States, therefore violating US and Canadian law.
> 
> The whole issue is about marijuana, it isn't about extradition anyway. Lets just drop the pretense.


 Alot of people export controled substances into the US, every day.  The difference here is he was open, where as the others exploit the thousands of holes in our borders daily. 

 If he had been in the US, broke the law, then left, I'd say it's clear, bring him in.  But if I order kiddie porn from Denmark, I get the fine/jail time...not the place I ordered from. Why is this different?  If I ordered pot from Holland, will they go after the seller there too?  or is that also different?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 9, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> That is different. Maybe.
> 
> If you mailed it from OH to NY, you'd be in violation of postal law, as well as federal and state laws. Might be a battle over juristiction, but NY would probably get 1st crack.
> 
> ...


 Apples and oranges. A crime was committed in Canada. It was exported purposely in to the United States in clear violation of the law.

Getting stoned in Amsterdam isn't the same as purposely exporting drugs in to a country you know very well makes that illegal, especially when the laws of your country outlaw it as well. 

Further, as this was a violation of a law in place, subsequent "decriminalization" will mean absolutely nothing. The law this guy violated wasn't against possession, it was against intentional export. That is a law I doubt they will alter...not if they want to continue to maintain amicable trade status with the US. Their choice.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Alot of people export controled substances into the US, every day. The difference here is he was open, where as the others exploit the thousands of holes in our borders daily.
> 
> If he had been in the US, broke the law, then left, I'd say it's clear, bring him in. But if I order kiddie porn from Denmark, I get the fine/jail time...not the place I ordered from. Why is this different? If I ordered pot from Holland, will they go after the seller there too? or is that also different?


 Actually, your mistaken in one sense. If I order that kind of material, I am violating the law in the US as well, yes, but so is the distributor. This guy screwed up, he did it blatantly, now he can be the martyr he acted like he wanted to be.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> A key point is, he's been doing this for 9 years, openly. It's not like he was hiding.
> 
> As to the "You guys get awful bent out of shape about the marijuana don't you?" bit, I'll be honest: I don't have a problem with it.
> 
> Tobacco is legal, and worse for you. Legalize it, tax it, and be done with it. Let the cops focus on the more pressing issues.


  At least your honest about the core of this discussion.  If it's about pot, people have decided that flaunting the law is ok.  You might want to reexamine that position in light of the consequences of that thinking.  If you believe pot should be decriminalized in the US, fine, we can have that argument.  But if you want to argue that people should simply be allowed to violate the law at will, that's a whole other bridge entirely.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 9, 2005)

For me, this is is only about honouring treaty obligations.  Emery should be extradited because of our treaty obligations.  We ratified them, and should adhere to them.  The nature of the offence is irrelevant.  

 Regarding the Amsterdam question, does the US hold MLAC treaty with Denmark?  If so, I would expect it should be honoured.  If not, then, moot point.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 9, 2005)

I don't think flaunting the law is ok, but I do disagree with trying a foriegn national in the US, for breaking a US law, when he was not here breaking it.
Is it against Canadian law to export pot?  If yes, then he should be tried in Canada.  If not, then the fact that it's illegal in the US to import pot is moot.  The US does not have the right to enforce it's own laws in other soverign nations, period.

And, yes, I do believe it should be decriminalized, but that debate may be better done elsewhere.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 9, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> If you mailed it from OH to NY, you'd be in violation of postal law, as well as federal and state laws. Might be a battle over juristiction, but NY would probably get 1st crack.
> 
> Now, sending from another nation, makes things more complex.
> Is sending explosives illegal there?


 Was a terrorist attack on the U.S. legal in Afghanistan in 2001? Obviously we have the national right of self-defense, allowing us to go in and wage war...but if Osama bin Laden had mailed a bomb (or anthrax) to the U.S., would it be legal to ask for his extradition? Is the pot case different because the item was requested (illegally)? What if a suicide bomber in the U.S. requests delivery of a bomb, which would also be illegal? Has the _sender_ any liability under U.S. law? Could the sender be extradited to face U.S. charges (short of declaring war)?



> Is there an extradiction treaty in place and is it in effect?


 I think we've arrested people in Central and South America surreptitiously, without such a treaty--basically, kidnapped them and brought them back here, then arrested them formally once they hit U.S. soil.

 Canadian LEOs arrested one of their citizens in accordance with their laws. I see it as a simple case. If they don't like it, they can secede from the treaty.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 9, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I don't think flaunting the law is ok, but I do disagree with trying a foriegn national in the US, for breaking a US law, when he was not here breaking it.


  We did that with Manuel Noriega, right? And were prepared to do it with Saddam Hussein if he wasn't to be tried in Iraq?

  If someone tries to kill me from the safety of another country, I'd like my country to be able to do something about it.

 Think about all the work-arounds people could have if things were the way you suggest, Kaith. Send spam to the U.S.? Fine, if you're off-shore. Mail cocaine to kids? Well, we can't arrest someone for that. Plan the bombing of a building in the States? As long as it's done on another continent, we won't take legal action. A person could coordinate actions against the U.S. and its citizens and only their flunkies in the U.S. would be at risk, short of us going to war. (We don't assassinate, remember...and who could sign that death warrant anyway, if it was just mailing drugs, not a warlike aggression?) I agree with you that it seems odd and disrespectful of others' soveriegnty, but I think it's the only way.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 9, 2005)

Much of what you mention is already going on. I'm curious to know what the US response will be if this person is not extracated.  Trade embargos, tarrifs, or tanks rolling?

Might be nice to goto war against Canada.  We'd finally get that damn Peace Bridge upgraded (after all, 3 lanes just isn't enough to move Abrams right?)  Plus, we'd finally be attacking a nation we do get oil from.  

Seriously, we're not talking about bombs, coordinating terrorist activity or even spam.  We're talking about pot, and the rights of nations.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 9, 2005)

If it's about pot being a low-grade offense, it's one thing.

If it's about the soveriegnty of the nations involved, though, I think you have to ask where you draw a line from mailing pot to mailing cocaine to mailing instructions and/or money for committing terror to mailing bombs?

Is it the principle of Canada's sovereign status, or the fact that it's "just" marijuana?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

Each side is abiding by a mutualy agreed upon treaty.

Bottom line.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 9, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> There was a lot of support when various nations announced they'd start arresting 'sex tourists' who travel abroad to have sex with minors. That is, as a U.S. citizen you can be arrested by the U.S., in the U.S., for what you do in Thailand.


 This is a very different situation.  The US can't press charges against a Canadian for overseas stat rape, only there own citizens when they get back. 

 If the situation was reversed, and it was Canada wanting to extradite a US citizen that brok Canadian law on US soil how many Americans would support it?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

Support it or not. If a treaty mandated it....

Not to say treaties cant be changed if the parties involved desire it.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 9, 2005)

If the situation were reversed it would be a sensitive issue, yes. But mailing drugs to Canada? You'd get a lot of support for prosecuting the person, here or there.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 9, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> This is a very different situation. The US can't press charges against a Canadian for overseas stat rape, only there own citizens when they get back.
> 
> If the situation was reversed, and it was Canada wanting to extradite a US citizen that brok Canadian law on US soil how many Americans would support it?


 You keep missing the issue. This is a crime that was committed on US soil perpetrated IN the US, originating in Canada. That is far different than a crime committed purely in Canada.

As far as some moron sending illegal merchandise to Canada for purposes of making money off violating Canadian law is concerned, YOU CAN HAVE HIM!!!



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> If the situation were reversed it would be a sensitive issue, yes. But mailing drugs to Canada? You'd get a lot of support for prosecuting the person, here or there.


 Nah, you can have the piece of crap.  If the guy is violating Canadian law, he's probably violating US law as well.  It would just be unfortunate that he'd get a cushy Canadian jail.  He'd probably be happy to be extradited to Canada.

Personally, i'd love one of our local criminals to violate something like Turkish law.  I'd drive him to the airport myself.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> We asked for Canadian help and you guys agreed. Could just as easily refused. If you are going to be mad over this be mad at yourselves. Abiding to mutual agreements is hardly a US abuse of power IMO.


lol - just like we decided that the Geneva Convention no longer suits our purposes?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Aug 9, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> A key point is, he's been doing this for 9 years, openly. It's not like he was hiding.
> 
> As to the "You guys get awful bent out of shape about the marijuana don't you?" bit, I'll be honest: I don't have a problem with it.
> 
> Tobacco is legal, and worse for you. Legalize it, tax it, and be done with it. Let the cops focus on the more pressing issues.


I personally think that the U.S. would be a much safer place if the efforts and resources used against marijuana were applied to far, far more dangerous drugs such as meth and crack. Meth is scary, scary stuff. I live in a heavy meth area and let me tell you, it sucks. Time to move, I think.

Not that I'm a marijuana fan - I think anyone who sells any drugs to kids, particularly, should spend some serious time in prison.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> lol - just like we decided that the Geneva Convention no longer suits our purposes?


The Geneva Convention specifically recognizes that many of the principles it lays out are not binding in certain particular cases. (This is one of the critical ways in which the Geneva Convention differs from the ICC charter.) There are three main exceptions which apply to most but not all of the provisions of the convention: they broadly don't apply to nations who are not signatory; specific ones don't apply to nations who are themselves violating them even if they are signatory, and some specific ones regarding treatment of enemy soldiers don't apply to enemy combatants who do not formally wear uniforms or formal insignia or other clear and distinct indication of membership in the military.

The reason for the exceptions is to prevent free riding. If a signatory was bound by the rules of the convention even when fighting against an opponent who didn't follow them, the signatory would be at a distinct disadvantage, and this would give nations an incentive to not join the convention. But if the protections laid out in the convention only apply to nations who are themselves members of the convention and who also follow the convention, then there's a strong incentive for nations to join it and obey it.

The primary goal of the Geneva Convention was to try to reduce the horror and excessive destruction of war, and that goal could best be achieved by trying to induce as many nations as possible to join the convention and to obey its restrictions. The exceptions were deliberately included in the treaty so as to maximize the number of nations joining it and obeying it.

(One of the many deep flaws of the ICC charter is that it recognizes no similar exception for its long list of war crimes and crimes against humanity. If one side uses nerve gas and then the other responds in kind, under the Geneva Convention only the first has committed a war crime, but under the ICC treaty both have.)

The convention doesn't forbid signatories from obeying its provisions when dealing with those who violate it, but rather makes clear that not obeying the convention in such cases is not a violation of the convention. The degree and kind of obedience to the convention in such cases is left up to the signatory. As a practical matter, the US does tend to follow many of the provisions of the treaty anyway even in such cases, because it's in our best interest to do so. But there can be specific instances, highly unusual circumstances, where we are permitted to ignore the convention and may decide that we would gain more by doing so. This happens to be one of them.

Generally speaking, we follow its provisions when we face enemies who follow it, even if they're not formally signatories to the treaty, but we don't do so when the actual cost to us would be extreme.

The provision regarding lack of uniforms is one of the more important exceptions. The basic idea of requiring formal insignia for combatants is to make it so that the soldiers of each side can differentiate enemy combatants from enemy non-combatants. If the soldiers of one side cannot easily determine whether someone on the other side is soldier or civilian, then there's a much greater likelihood that civilians will be killed. One of the things that those who composed the treaty wanted to try to do was to reduce the slaughter of civilians in war.

Therefore, if an enemy combatant is captured and is not wearing any recognizable insignia or uniform, he is not entitled to any protection at all under the Geneva Convention. He can be executed on the spot without trial, for instance. He is considered to be committing a war crime by fighting without any such insignia, but if he's executed then those who order the execution and those who carry it out are not committing a war crime.

That provision regarding combatants without insignia applies to three major cases: to insurgents (such as to guerrilla action in occupied areas), to soldiers trying to hide among civilians during formal combat, and to spies. The argument for not rewarding each of these cases is the same and is valid; if you grant them protection anyway, you will encourage more of all three with tragic consequences.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

You opened it up. I responded. If you want to take it further lets start another thread.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 10, 2005)

I said a long time ago, the US lost the "Drug War".

If they want to "Win", they need to fight it like a war.
- Napalm and Triox the places where it's grown.
- Mobilize the National Guard and actively patrol our borders.  Build manned watch towers on both borders, create a "no-mans land" area, and make certain that noone could sneak over or under.
- Do line-of-sight naval patroling, meaning each ship can visibly see the next in line.
- Actively patrol from the air.
- All units have the "challenge-destroy" order, meaning, they can actively search, sieze, and sink anything that fails to allow search, or is found smuggling.
- Manditory death sentence, nation wide for any and all infractions, irregardless of age, gender or social position.  Senator FussBucket pops a joint, it's BBQ time for his ***.  So long Bush gals, too bad College parties were that corrupting.

Wait, is all that "too much"?

We're going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a year or 3 trying to nab this guy.  In the mean time, thousands of harder drugs will come in from all sides, illegal aliens will be tunneling in, and deadly unsafe trucks will be pouring in from Mexico and driving on our highways.  Never mind the drive bys, the muggings, rapes and murders going on in our cities.  I'd rather see them let the Canadians process him and deal with him, however they do, and focus our own efforts on more important matters.

Like training and equiping our local LEO to handle the broke crack head who's pulling a gun on old women to feed his crack habit...or taking out the local crack dealers and making neighborhoods safe again.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

How do you propose we win that front of the drug war? The hard stuff is coming in just like the "soft".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 10, 2005)

Legalize pot, tax it, and push the majority of those funds towards enforcement, education and reformation.  Tobaco and alchohol have heavy "sin taxes" on them, why not pot? Then, rather than worry about the dumb teen with a joint or 2, you can focus on the gangbanger pushing the hard stuff.

Didn't you read my campaign platform?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

Yeah, but how do you stop the flow of coke, heroin, meth etc.? Thats what Im asking.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 10, 2005)

> If they want to "Win", they need to fight it like a war.
> - Napalm and Triox the places where it's grown.
> - Mobilize the National Guard and actively patrol our borders. Build manned watch towers on both borders, create a "no-mans land" area, and make certain that noone could sneak over or under.
> - Do line-of-sight naval patroling, meaning each ship can visibly see the next in line.
> ...



Take out the sources, and I don't mean the nervous guy on the corner.  Tell Columbia to take care of their druglords, or the 101st will be paying them a visit soon.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 10, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Take out the sources, and I don't mean the nervous guy on the corner. Tell Columbia to take care of their druglords, or the 101st will be paying them a visit soon.


 Crap, we'd bomb the world, then, Bob.  South America, Mexico, Middle East, Canada, Asia ... then England would be forced to take us out as a terrorist nation.

 Back on topic, why doesn't Canada charge him as well?  Is it just easier/cheaper to let the U.S. handle it?


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 10, 2005)

Marijuana is not such a big crime up here, especially in BC.  A lot of people are expecting it to be legalized very soon anyways.

 He's been running this business in the open for 9 years, was shut down once though, after that he switched to selling seeds.

 It is also legal for some uses and doctors will prescribe it for some conditions.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 10, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Crap, we'd bomb the world, then, Bob.  South America, Mexico, Middle East, Canada, Asia ... then England would be forced to take us out as a terrorist nation.
> 
> Back on topic, why doesn't Canada charge him as well?  Is it just easier/cheaper to let the U.S. handle it?


 So?  It's a "war" right?  Or is it only a selective war?  Maybe if this guy had known he could be ignored by making significant campaign contributions like the Columbian do, we wouldn't even know his name today.

I see this as little more than a "distraction" move.  They can't find Osama, or those WMD, the Iraq conflict is going rather poorly.  Lets bust a big-time drug dealer and make people believe we're doing something.  I know I'll sleep better tonight knowing this evil bastard can no longer make out teens dull minded. Sortof like telling the beat cop to target jaywalkers and hookers rather than robbers, muggers and rapists. "We made 15 arrests today" sounds really good, until you realize it didn't make you safer.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 10, 2005)

Well, the war on drugs is off-topic ...

 ... but if we must ...

 Let's be honest here.  The US is not fighting a war on drugs - why on earth would they want to do that? Drugs = arms.  I have no doubt our government buys, sells and trades drugs for arms, information, technology, and vice-versa.  Drugs are rampant - they're so accessible it's insane. Tried to get hold of ephedra lately?

 The scant few busts on "the little guy," mini drug rings, and the occasional tunnel under the borders are for show and nothing more.

 Wanna bomb the **** out of where drugs come from?  Kiss your *** goodbye.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

Come on! "We cant find Osama so we get this guy"?? This was hardly a blip on the US media. If that were the case I would think there would be a spotlight on it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 10, 2005)

But, it is part of the "war on drugs", since we are chasing foriegn citizens on foriegn soil.
His crime?  Selling pot seeds.

We can get him, but every day, hundreds of ---people--- sneak across the southern border. Hell, we're even giving them Social Security now. I really wonder where our efforts are better aimed.  Stopping a mail order plant dealer, or stopping physical bodies who once in the country can now scatter and seek to do significant damage. A little serin in the water, a little dioxin in the food, random shootings, hey, meybe we can have some suicide bombers too.  But, we got the plant guy.  Yay team.

Tom, once the elections get closer, one of those disconnected egomaniacs will take credit and use it to show how tough they are on crime. 

I go back to my original statement: 
I don't believe it is right to arrest someone for breaking the law remotely. The fact that he sent illegal (under US law) items to the US is moot. Arrest those buying those items.

He is in Canada, is a Canadian citizen, and alegedly broke Canadian law by dealing. Looks like an internal Canadian issue to me. The US should butt out. It's not the US's place to tell Canada what/how to enforce their laws.

Let the Canadians deal with him how they will.  The US needs to do better to stop the stuff at the border.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

We arent "telling Canada" anything. We are using a treaty that both nations agreed upon. There wasnt even an American LEO on scene when this guy was arrested.

If its illegal to import an item into our country, you are breaking our law....per se no?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 10, 2005)

> If its illegal to import an item into our country, you are breaking our law....per se no?



Yes, the importer is.  IE his buyers.
Arrest them.  Were any of them arrested?  Were any shipments intercepted at Customs?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

If we are going to debate the topic we should be familiar with the treaty...

http://www.oas.org/Juridico/mla/en/traites/en_traites_can-usa-ext1991.pdf
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/mla/en/can/presentation/mlaprocedure.pdf

If Canada had an issue with this, they had every opportunity to turn it down....


----------



## modarnis (Aug 10, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I don't believe it is right to arrest someone for breaking the law remotely.  The fact that he sent illegal (under US law) items to the US is moot.  Arrest those buying those items.
> 
> He is in Canada, is a Canadian citizen, and alegedly broke Canadian law by dealing. Looks like an internal Canadian issue to me.  The US should butt out. It's not the US's place to tell Canada what/how to enforce their laws.
> 
> ...




My guess is from looking at the US Attorney's Office press release that was linked in one of the previously posted articles, that his internet reach to all 50 states, along with the physical mailing of the contraband through a US stream of interstate commerce (mail, UPS, Fed Ex) would support violations of the Hobbs Act and even a potential RICO charge with the way money is laundered through the commerce stream.  His choice to operate a business that allows the US to gain jurisdiction on him easily


----------



## modarnis (Aug 10, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I disagree with that policy.  I understand the intent, but not the way it works.
> If it's legal where you do it (whatever it is) then you shouldn't be at risk when you return home.  I mean, NY drinking age is 21.  Are we going to bust every 19-20 year old who goes to ON where the drinking age is 19?   Should I get a ticket in NY for when I was driving 85 in GA (on a road where it was legal) when the max in NY is 65?
> 
> I understand the idea is to do as much damage to the sex trade, but while that punishes 1 party, it does nothing to save the victim, stop future victimization, or solve the problem.
> ...




The speeding and drinking examples are easily distinguishable since the offenses involve the offender physically doing something in a particular place.    I can think of a variety of crimes where the offense might take place someplace removed from the endpoint:  violations of no contact domestic violence protective orders by phone, mail, email, or third party contact, harrassing/threatening phone, email, IM repetitive contact, witness tampering cases where third parties are sent to squeeze a particular witness at someone else's behest.   Telephone Larceny/fraud cases where victims never see the defendant.  Not all crimes are as black and white, on the spot as a carjacking, or a traffic violation


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 10, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> My guess is from looking at the US Attorney's Office press release that was linked in one of the previously posted articles, that his internet reach to all 50 states, along with the physical mailing of the contraband through a US stream of interstate commerce (mail, UPS, Fed Ex) would support violations of the Hobbs Act and even a potential RICO charge with the way money is laundered through the commerce stream. His choice to operate a business that allows the US to gain jurisdiction on him easily


That, coupled with Canada's treaty obligation, validates the extradition should Canadian courts find that the US has jurisdiction.

Regarding why he hasn't been charged in Canada:  Apparently this was more of a priority to the US than to us.  Personally, I think it's great.  This way, he faces stiffer penalties, and it's not on my dime.  I'm fine with that.  He could have been charged here, as distribution of marijuana seeds is a crime, and will very likely remain such irrespective of upcoming easing of marijuana possession laws.  But, the US wanted him worse.

I still see no reason why we should grant this admitted criminal any sympathy.  If he was interested in protecting his freedom, he should have educated himself as to the potential repercussions for engaging in these activities.  As far as I'm concerned he's getting off easy in that he is not facing charges in both countries.

I do not believe that the US should be able to have any type of jurisdictional claims over foreign nationals on foreign soil unless it is specifically allowed for through bi-lateral treaty agreements.  In this case, it was.  

In fact, I'm exceptionally pleased that my country is taking the initiative to live up to their end of the bargain and follow through with their committment.  Because some times, countries do not.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

Canada has just as much authority to do this under this agreement as the US.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 10, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> If he was interested in protecting his freedom, he should have educated himself as to the potential repercussions for engaging in these activities. As far as I'm concerned he's getting off easy in that he is not facing charges in both countries.


 As the head of the BC Marijuana party I'd imagine he had a pretty good grasp on what could get him in trouble, but as a bit of a Pot activist pushed the limits of it.

 But I don't think anyone would expect to get charged with crimes commited in a country they aren't in.


----------



## modarnis (Aug 10, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> As the head of the BC Marijuana party I'd imagine he had a pretty good grasp on what could get him in trouble, but as a bit of a Pot activist pushed the limits of it.
> 
> But I don't think anyone would expect to get charged with crimes commited in a country they aren't in.



I'm stunned at the logic of this second statement. So stunned, I now have a roomful of my prosecutor colleagues sharing their disbelief with me while I collect my thoughts.   I would think you might expect to get caught if you are actually committing a crime, regardless of where you are physically.

 If a person in another country used a computer and internet  to steal from your bank account, by your logic they get a pass and haven't committed a larceny.  In my experiences as a prosecutor often times the criminal isn't at a "crime scene" at the time of the crime (forgery cases, bad check cases, the list goes on), and very often they are not at the crimescene when an arrest is made. Sometimes they need to be extradited from other state's or countries to answer to the charges


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 10, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_court

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050714/news_lz1e14sloman.html



> President Clinton signed the ICC treaty on behalf of the United States. President Bush "unsigned" it early in his first term. He is dead set against the ICC prosecution of any U.S. citizen. Bush's stated fear is that the ICC will be used for political prosecutions against U.S. soldiers, U.S. government officials and any other American who might be charged with international crimes.


 Somehow I really doubt the American Government would just say "Ok, he's yours" if the situation was reversed...

 If they refuse to let there citizens be tried internationally for Crimes Against humanity, when they had initially agreed to the treaty, why would we expect them to turn over someone mailing drugs across the border?

  Treaty or no, if the situation was reversed we wouldn't be getting any American extradited to Canada.


----------



## modarnis (Aug 10, 2005)

>>Exempting U.S. citizens from prosecution in the International Criminal Court does not mean absolution from conduct governed by international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions. This only means no prosecution by the International Criminal Court, as opposed to other forums. U.S. Army Reserve Pvt. Lyndie England, who worked at Iraq's Abu Grahib prison, is one U.S. citizen who deservedly knows this all too well. >>

This is from the signs on San Diego link, just posted.  It is often helpful to read carefully what is actually said in articles used to support a position.  It speaks only to ICC, not to other jurisdictions prosecuting their offenses.  Not particullarly relevant to this discussion


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 10, 2005)

It is relevant, as it is the overall attitude that people have the problem with.  Exempting the citizens of ONE nation is not the right way to do things, everyone should be held accountable for their own actions.  And if that means a non-US court trying US citizens for major crimes then that is the way it shoulc be.  No special exceptions just cause its the US.

 I have no doubt in my mind that the US government would NOT allow extradition if the situation was reversed.  Try the person in the US probably, but not let that person be tried by a foreign court.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> If a person in another country used a computer and internet to steal from your bank account, by your logic they get a pass and haven't committed a larceny. In my experiences as a prosecutor often times the criminal isn't at a "crime scene" at the time of the crime (forgery cases, bad check cases, the list goes on), and very often they are not at the crimescene when an arrest is made. Sometimes they need to be extradited from other state's or countries to answer to the charges


Good question...anybody?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

I dont agree with an "International court" either. If 2 countries wish to make an agreement like the US and Canada are party to, fine. Otherwise....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 10, 2005)

The US doesn't have a great record where honoring treaties is concerned.
Just ask the Seneca Nation.

I think it's hypocritical for a nation to expect a foriegn power to pass over their citizens for prosecution, while insisting that it's own citizens be exempt from the same.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

Your country is party to this Andrew...how about directing some questions there.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

Not all Canadians are that upset over this either.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/8552


> Marc Emery: Dont Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out.
> By Brent Colbert (08/03/05)
> 
> Some here in Canada have jumped to the defence of Canadian drug dealer Marc Emery who has been arrested by the RCMP under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act at the request of the American DEA. Mr. Emery runs an on-line drug distribution network that sells among other items, marijuana seeds. Mr. Emery is alleged to have sold and shipped these seeds across the border into the U.S.
> ...


http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=eff002cb-54d2-44d5-a978-528614656ccb


> While we have little sympathy for Emery -- who may or may not have violated U.S. drug laws -- there are some legitimate issues that should be addressed.
> 
> The fact our police co-operated with American authorities is not an assault on our sovereignty, but the result of a mutual assistance treaty that has served both countries well.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 10, 2005)

Good points Tom. :cheers:


----------



## modarnis (Aug 10, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I have no doubt in my mind that the US government would NOT allow extradition if the situation was reversed.  Try the person in the US probably, but not let that person be tried by a foreign court.



And do you have any specific examples in mind?  I have personally been involved in a case where a person was extradited back to Canada to answer charges there.  No fuss, only an extra step involving the feds to sign off on their version of what we refer to as a governor's warrant, basically an acknowledgement of "foreign" (refering to outside jurisdiction, not necessarily a different nation) charges.

You can believe what you want, but it happens rather routinely between US and Canada, especially in border states


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Not all Canadians are that upset over this either.


 Have all Americans ever agreed on something?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 10, 2005)

At first reading the subject heading, I thought it was going to be about an activity commited only in Canada which was not illegal in Canada but was illegal in the US.  *That* would be something.

 However if the crimes were commited against the US, as seems to apply here, then it seems to be just a simple extridition case.  Why the fuss?  This stuff happens a lot.  Usually the only time it becomes a big deal is if one nation doesn't want to extradite because they have moral objections to the punishment to be faced by the one being extridited.  For example, if someone commits a crime in the US for which the death penalty is a possible penalty, and flees to another country, some counties, if they don't have a dealth penly themselvese, are reluctant to extridite someone to the US if they could face that punishment.  I think there was a case a fewyears ago of some US citizens in Singapore who broke local law and a lot of people here were upset because the punishment was caning. Other than that or I guess situations where there is fear that the accused is being railroaded, I don't think it really becomes that big an issue


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

The extradition hearing HASNT EVEN BEEN HELD yet. This is all furor over the fact he was even arrested. Im betting he never gets extradited because of the position it puts the Canadian Gvt. in. (they have to either outright legalize pot or get tough on enforcing existing law).

This is more about Pot than it is about any sovereignty issues IMO.


----------



## modarnis (Aug 10, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The US doesn't have a great record where honoring treaties is concerned.
> Just ask the Seneca Nation.
> 
> I think it's hypocritical for a nation to expect a foriegn power to pass over their citizens for prosecution, while insisting that it's own citizens be exempt from the same.



Since you live up in Buffalo, do you have any examples where U.S. citizens were prevented from being extradited to Canada by the U.S. government?  Since you are direct neighbors, extraditions probably happen several times a month and never garners any media attention or government resistance.

I agree with Tom, if this were an assault or a theft, there wouldn't be an issue.  Since it is really about Pot, people come out of the woodwork to complain about a usually unnewsworthy, routine event in the day to day of the criminal justice system


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 13, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_court
> 
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050714/news_lz1e14sloman.html
> 
> ...


 Big difference between allowing another country to try a US criminal (I have no problem with it) and allowing a European court to gain political points by "trying" a US citizen for cooked up war crimes charges. Sorry, no dice. And it seems your point has already been deflated.



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> And do you have any specific examples in mind? I have personally been involved in a case where a person was extradited back to Canada to answer charges there. No fuss, only an extra step involving the feds to sign off on their version of what we refer to as a governor's warrant, basically an acknowledgement of "foreign" (refering to outside jurisdiction, not necessarily a different nation) charges.
> 
> You can believe what you want, but it happens rather routinely between US and Canada, especially in border states


So it seems you are not only wrong, Andrew, but way wrong as this kind of thing happens in reverse on a regular basis.


----------



## Bester (Aug 14, 2005)

List of Main Crimes Committed and Incidents Concerning the U.S. Military on Okinawa - Excerpts

Since the reversion of Okinawa to Japan in 1972, approximately 4,700 crimes have been committed by U.S. military personnel. The relatively serious crimes and incidents concerning US military, from which Okinawan people have suffered are extracted below.

[Translation from the Okinawa Times, Oct.12,1995]

Before the Reversion

Aug.6,1948 Ammunition exploded while the US Navy was loading the bomb stored during W.W.II into cargo-ship at Kabira New Peer. The explosion killed 106 and wounded 76 passengers leaving a nearby ferryboat.

Aug.2,1950 A refuel tank was dropped on the yard of a private house from the US Army aircraft flying over Yomitan Village and exploded, killing one and injuring three.

Oct.20,1951 A fuel tank was dropped on a private house from a US airforce fighter in Makishi, Naha. It burned the house totally, killing six residents.

Sep.4,1955 A six-year-old girl, living in Ishikawa City was found murdered in Kadena area. A US sergeant was arrested and sentenced to death in December. Rycom Compensation Examining Committee informed the bereaved family of the payment of $2000 compensation, one eighth of the amount claimed. Later, the sentence was reduced to 45 years' heavy labor servitude.

Mar.8, 1956 A 28-year-old man crossing the road in Urasoe Village was run over and killed by a Military Police (MP) car. A US serviceman driving the police car was judged 'not guilty'.

Jun.30, 1959 A US Airforce fighter crashed on the schoolhouse of Miyanomori Elementary School in Ishikawa City, killing seventeen pupils and teachers and injuring over 100.

Oct.28,1959 A 23-year-old woman employee of a club for foreigners was strangled to death in Center Street of Koza City. Two days later, a 24-year-old US serviceman was arrested, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment the next year.

Dec.26,1959 A farmer, fifty-five-year-old woman picking up used bullets, was shot to death by a US sergeant in Camp Hansen of Kin Town. The sergeant testified that he took her for a wild boar. US Army decided to pay $2700 compensation to the bereaved family. The sergeant was judged 'not guilty' by court-martial the next year.

Dec.9,1960 An American hunter shot a 73-year-old man to death in Miwa Village mistaking him for an animal.

Feb.1,1961 A twenty-year-old man was shot to death while he was picking up used bullets in the US Army firing training area of Iye Island. US Military Police judged this case a "self-injuring deed".

Jul.11,1961 An 47-year-old employee was murdered with an edged tool in a bar in Henoko, Kushi Village. Two marines, both 20 years old, confessed their crime and one of them was imprisoned for life.

Sep.19,1961 A US serviceman hit four pupils and escaped in Koza City; nine- and ten-year-old schoolgirls were killed. The court-martial sentenced the accused to one-rank demotion and six months' confinement to barracks.

Dec.7,1961 A car driven by US Army jet fighter crashed on a private house in Kawasaki, Gushikawa Village; six citizens killed or injured. US Army paid $623 compensation to the bereaved family.

Dec.20,1962 A US transport aircraft crashed on a private house in Yara of Kadena Town; seven citizens were killed and eight were seriously or slightly injured.

Feb.28,1963 A 12-year-old junior high school boy on the way home from school was hit and killed by a car driven by a 20-year-old US serviceman on Root 1 in Naha City. This criminal was judged 'not guilty' by court-martial in May, which caused a prefecture-wide protest movements.

Jul.3,1963 A 22-year-old woman employee of a diner, was strangled to death. A 19-year-old US Marine confessed his crime and was sentenced to eighteen years' imprisonment by court-martial.

Jan.21,1964 A taxi driver was attacked by a couple of US Military servicemen on the road of Kin Village and was robbed of his taxi.

Aug.10,1964 A 32-year-old man, gathering sea shells on Kuwae beach, Chatan Town, was hit by a stray bullet, and died three days later. US Army paid $2000 compensation to his family, though the family had claimed $6000.

Jan.24,1965 A 28-year-old woman working at a bar for foreigners was murdered at her house in Kin Village. A US serviceman was examined as a suspect by US Army detective organization.

Jun.11,1965 A small size trailer dropped from a US bomber on Oyashi of Yomitan Village during bombing exercise, killing an eleven-year-old schoolgirl. The US Army announced that it was dropped mistakenly. The compensation paid was slightly more than $4,700.

May 20,1966 A jet fighter failed in taking off Kadena base, hit and killed a 33-year-old man walking on the road outside the base. The family was compensated $14,000,¡¡one fifth of the amount claimed.

May 20,1966 A taxi driver was stabbed to death in Naha City. Okinawa Prefectural Police concluded according to the eyewitnesses that the crime was committed by a US serviceman. The accused was finally kept in custody by US Army.

Jul.22,1966 A 34-year-old woman was found murdered in Shinkaichi, Kin Town. US Army arrested a 19-year-old military deserter as a suspect.

Dec.3,1966 A man trying to arbitrate a quarrel between US servicemen was shot to death in Business Center Street of Koza City.

Jan.5.1967 An Okinawan guard was robbed of a pistol by two US servicemen in the camp of Misato Village. Two US servicemen, after committing burglary and injury in Koza City and in Naha City, were arrested by US Army.

Jan.24,1967 A 32-year-old woman employee was strangled to death in her diner in Shinkaichi, Kin Village. A 19-year-old US Marine was arrested by the US Army and was sentenced to 35 years' heavy labor servitude by court-martial.

Mar.23,1967 A 56-year-old worker was run over and killed by a US Army trailer in Naha naval port. The driver left the dead body alone .

May 4,1967 Rejected oil of US Army was found discharged into four wells in Yara, Kadena Town.

Jul.24,1967 A 31-year-old taxi driver was stabbed to death in Urasoe Village. Futenma Police station arrested a US serviceman and handed him over to US Army.

Aug.2,1967 A 16-year-old high school boy running for his school activity was hit and killed by a US Army vehicle in Enobi, Gushikawa Village. A¡¡21-year-old US serviceman driving it ran away but was arrested later. He was sentenced to one year's imprisonment with hard labor and discharge from his military service.

Nov.8,1967 A four-year-old girl was run over and killed by a crane of US Army in Gushikawa Village.

Jan.30,1968 A 35-five-year-old maid was killed in a barrack of US Army. A joint investigation meeting of military and civilian police was held on April 1.

Jun.20,1968 A 23-year-old woman employee of diner was raped and heavily injured on the beach of Ginoza Village by a MP on duty.

Nov.19,1968 A B-52 bomber crashed on Kadena Air Base, injuring four residents.

Jul.8,1969 A gas leaking accident happened on the base. Twenty-four army staff members disposed were hospitalized. US Army confessed the disposition of poisonous gas weapons.

Mar.12,1970 Sixty-two pistols were stolen in the base of Henoko, Nago City.

May 28,1970 A 21-year-old woman employee of the army was assaulted on the way to work by a US serviceman in the army post of Yafuso, Urasoe Village. The accused was judged 'not guilty' by court-martial due to lack of evidence .

May 30,1970 A 16-year-old high school girl was assaulted and was stabbed with a knife to serious injury in Gushikawa Village. A 22-year-old US serviceman was arrested by Koza Police and US Army. The criminal was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Villagers criticized it saying, "the punishment is too light".

Dec.7,1970 On the retrial of a 21-year-old US serviceman, who had been on trial by court-martial under the suspicion of hitting a 51-year-old woman and running away in Itoman Town since September of the previous year, was judged not guilty. US Army decided to pay $17,000 compensation.

Dec.20,1970 The traffic accident caused by a US serviceman raised a disturbance among the crowd in Koza City. 73 US Army vehicles were burned.

Jan.13,1971 Due to the transportation of US Army poison gas, five thousand people living along the route evacuated.

April 23,1971 A 23-year-old woman employee of a diner was struck with a stone to death by a US serviceman in Ohyama, Ginowan City. The suspect was arrested by U.S.Army but was judged 'not guilty' due to lack of evidence.

May 1,1971 A 42-year-old woman was stabbed to death at her home of Kin. US-Japan Joint investigation was pursued on the assumption that the crime was committed by US servicemen.

Oct. 2,1971 A 40-year-old taxi driver was found murdered on the farm road in Mihara, Ishikawa City.

Apr.10,1972 A 25-year-old woman employee of a diner near Awase golf course in Kita-Nakagusuku Village.

After the Reversion

Aug.4,1972 A 37-year-old woman employee was strangled to death by an 18-year-old US serviceman¡¡at a bar in Ojana, Ginowan City. In the following year, the serviceman was convicted to be imprisoned for life.

Sep. 20,1972 At Camp Hansen, a 37-year-old Japanese military employee was shot to death with a rifle by a US serviceman. It was the first murder by shooting within the base after the Reversion. The accused denied the intent to murder at the first trial. On April '74, Naha Local Court gave a decision of "not guilty", judging the accused to be non compos. The accused was accordingly sent back to USA and was taken to the Naval Hospital.

Sep.26,1972 It was revealed that a US serviceman who allegedly killed a 50-year-old Japanese man by running over had been sentenced of "no guilty".

Dec.1,1972 A 19-year-old US serviceman strangled a 22-year-old woman in Koza City. The serviceman was sentenced to be imprisoned for life at the court of first instance.

Mar.18,1973 A 43-year-old woman employee of a diner was strangled to death at her apartment in Koza City. The city police office and the US Army jointly concluded that the murder was conducted by a US serviceman.

Apr.12,1973 A 73-year-old woman picking up bullets at Blue Beach, Kin Village was run over by a tank and killed. The US Army notified the Prefectural Office of exercising the primary jurisdiction asserting that the incident occurred in line of duty.

Jul.10,1974 A 20-year-old man mowing in the military firing range at Iye Village w as shot by two US servicemen. He was wounded at his left hand requiring three weeks to heel. The US Army first declared the waiver of jurisdiction regarding it as an incident off duty. But, it reversed the decision later: the US Airforce Commander at Okinawa notified the Naha District Prosecutors Office that "US side will exercise the jurisdiction because it is a crime committed in line of duty."

Oct.23,1974 A 52-year-old woman manager of a Cafe at Henoko, Nago City was, while sleeping at her cafe, hit to death with a cement block by a US serviceman intending robbery.

Dec. 1,1974 At Wakasa, Naha City, a 24-year-old man on his way home was shot by a US serviceman intending robbery and got injured at his right hand.

Apr.19,1975 Two junior high school girls were raped by a 21-year old US serviceman in Kin Village. This incident became an object of public concern, and the accused was handed over to Japan side after he was indicted. He was later sentenced to six years imprisonment.

Apr.23,1975 Sexivalent chromium ( a kind of heavy metal, a powerful oxidizer) was detected to be discharged from Maki-minato US base. Later, a testimony by a Japanese ex-employee revealed that five people had been sacrificed.

Feb.26,1976 A 40-year-old worker at Maki-minato supply base got seriously injured as a suspect case of poisoning by methyl bromide. Two months later a doctor in Mainland Japan announced that the injury was caused by methyl bromide poisoning.

Dec.29,1978 A US servicemen at the exercise in the Henoko Camp, Nago City made wild firing of machine guns toward Kyoda Village. Shot holes were detected at private houses.

Aug.2,1979 Some bullets, suspected to be from US military machine guns, were shot into a water tank of a pigsty at Sukuda, Nago City. The US Commander expressed his regret in May.

Nov.5,1979 A US army signal bomb dropped onto the garden of a private house in Kin Village. The US army announced that it was just a mischief by a US serviceman.

Oct.1,1980 An observation aircraft crashed on the runway of Futenma Marine Base, killing one member of the crew.

Apr.21,1981 A Marine parachute exercising at Yomitan auxiliary airport fell near Furugen Elementary School, causing a turmoil among the pupils at the morning meeting.

Mar.8,1982 A 48-year-old jobless man was found to be killed in the graveyard in Kin Town. Ishikawa Police Office arrested a 20-year old US serviceman in the base with the permission of the US Investigation Headquarters. Naha District Court ordered the accused in March, 1983 to pay forty million yen.

Aug.2,1982 A 33-year-old woman employee of a diner at a house building site in Henoko, Nago City, was strangled to death by a 22-year-old US serviceman.

Aug.19,1982 A US military helicopter crashed in Futenma Base.

Feb.23,1983 A 40-year-old taxi driver was stabbed to death by two US servicemen in Camp Hansen, Kin Town. In November Naha District Court sentenced the two accused to imprisonment for life.

Apr.4, 1983 A 41-year-old village resident walking out of the fence of a US military facility in Yomitan Village got fire warning shots by military police.

May 18,1984 In Kyoda, Nago City, a dump truck was shot at the front part by a machine gun bullet apparently from a US tank.

Jan.16,1985 A 51-year-old junkman was stabbed to death while sleeping by a 20-year-old US serviceman intending theft. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life at Naha District Court. In January 1988, the Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal, thus determining the sentence.

July 12, 1985 A US military helicopter crashed on the mountain path near Henoko Dam, Kunigami Village, killing all of the four crew members.

Oct.29,1985 Ishikawa Police Office arrested two US servicemen in the act of raping a woman after abducting her by a car on her way home.

Sep.27,1986 A bullet from US military M16 rifle broke a window of a private house in Igei, Kin Town.

Jul.9,1987 The water pipe from the Shiobaru Reservoir at Yakaku, Kin Town was broken by US military M16 rifle causing suspension of water supply to some houses.

Jun.4,1988 Two men driving prefecture road No.70 at Takae, Higashi Village complained of pain at eyes and throat. It was later attributed to the discharge of tear gas.

Aug.12,1988 In July 1987, a Malaysian cargo ship was shot by a mock bomb off Kume Island. The US army announced that the incident was that the formation chief mistook the ship for an island. The Eleventh Regional Maritime Safety Headquarters sent the papers pertaining to the formation chief to the Public Prosecutors Office.

Oct.15,1988 Several bullets, suspected to be from the US exercise field, were found one after another at a private house in Igei, Kin Town. One of the bullets nearly shot a citizen's abdomen.

Oct.31,1988 A US military helicopter crashed near the training field in Takae, Higashi Village, killing four people.

Dec.24,1988 A tear gas bomb was thrown into a disco in Okinawa City, which caused two hundred people fall down. Two lost consciousness. The US marine announced a suspension of using tear gas for the time being.

Mar.14, 1989 A US military helicopter crashed on the sea near Iye Island, killing three crew members.

Nov.4, 1989 American boys and so on, one after another, shot air guns.

Jun.14, 1991 A 34-year-old jobless man was stabbed to death by a 20-year-old US serviceman. The serviceman was sentenced to nine years' penal servitude.

Oct.15,1991 A US serviceman fired blank shots at a private car on the Town Road passing through Camp Hansen in Kin Town.

Jan.17,1992 Three US servicemen committed robbery at a private house in Okinawa City. Two of them kept in custody by the US army escaped out of the base. One of them was arrested later in the United States.

Oct.20, 1992 A large-size helicopter crashed in Futenma base near Futenma Dai-ni Elementary School.

Apr. 11,1993 A 33-year-old carpenter was clubbed to death by a 18-year-old marine.

Jul.17,1993 A 25-year-old US serviceman under confinement within the base as a suspected case of raping a 19-year-old Japanese woman escaped back to United States by a commercial aircraft. He was arrested in US and was sent back to Okinawa.

Nov.16, 1994 A US military helicopter crashed in Camp Schwab in Henoko, Nago City, killing and injuring five people.

May 10,1995 A 24-year-old insurance saleswoman was hit on the face with a hammer by a 20-year-old US serviceman in front of her apartment house. She died.

Sep.4,1995 Three US servicemen raped a 12-year-old schoolgirl.

[10/12/1995 from The Okinawa Times]


----------



## RickRed (Aug 15, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> List of Main Crimes Committed and Incidents Concerning the U.S. Military on Okinawa - Excerpts
> 
> [10/12/1995 from The Okinawa Times]


This is a strange turn for the thread, after reading through all the posts before it. What does it have to do with anything. Does Japan have the same treaty arrangement as Canada with the US? If not, it has no bearing.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 15, 2005)

RickRed said:
			
		

> This is a strange turn for the thread, after reading through all the posts before it. What does it have to do with anything. Does Japan have the same treaty arrangement as Canada with the US? If not, it has no bearing.


 What's furthermore, it's apples and oranges. I have no problem with the US military maintaining jursidiction over military personnell. To do otherwise would be to open US military personnell deployed overseas to harassment prosecution by local governments for political gain. 

As far as i'm concerned, if a US soldier commits a grievous crime, such as the murder of a child in Okinawa, the US military should STILL maintain jurisdiction...right up until they hang him while other military personnell and the victims family look on. The military are responsible for everything it's personnell due, and it is responsible for punishing them severly for violating their oath. I don't want military personnell escaping punishment for what they do, I just don't want military personnell subject to political prosecution for political gain.

Besides, with all the whining on the left about how horrible US prisons are, and how much better they treat prisoners in other parts of the world (lol), you should be happy some soldier is sent to Leavenworth KS for 25 years.   

This issue is far different, a Canadian citizen has committed a crime in the US by exporting a controlled substance in to the US on repeated occassions, simultaneously violating US and Canadian. What's furthermore, the Canadian government has the option of refusing extradition, but they don't really care. Case closed.

What's furthemore, we've already established that we extradite US citizens TO Canada all the time, so this is a non-issue.


----------



## ave_turuta (Aug 15, 2005)

In international law, these matters are usually resolved through a principle called *universal jurisdiction*. Although the information in all the news clippings is a little shady and I cannot make up my mind, it seems to me as if the US is overstepping its jurisdictional boundaries in this particular case, since this particular person is not comitting any crimes on US soil. Jurisdiction is closely related to territoriality, i.e. you cannot commit a crime in a territory where that particular behavior is not penalized as such. Further, when and if you do, you are to be tried according to the laws of the country where the crime was committed (this is a basic principle of international law). Only after you have been tried and sentenced can another nation initiate an extradiction procedure, but certain conditions need to be met. For instance, persons in countries that are signatories to certain conventions cannot be sent to countries where they would be subject to cruel or inhumane punishment, so for instance European countries will ***not***, under any circumstance, extradite one of its citizens to the United States if the person can face the death penalty, which is outlawed in Europe. In this particular case, the Canadian citizen could fight his extradiction to the US arguing, for instance, that he has already served a prison term in Canada and thus no further punishment is needed, or even that the punishment a US court would potentially issue is not according to the punishment guidelines set by Canadian law, thus being excessive. Ultimately, I think it is very unlikely he will be sent to the US: it poses more diplomatic problems and jurisdictional headaches than it solves any problems. They will try him in Canada and perhaps make an example out of him, but that's about it. 

 Matters of international law are extremely complex and unfortunately in all that i read about this case it is not clear what the basis of the US claim is, but it seems to me that the US is applying a very wide understanding of both the treaty with Canada and universal jurisdiction to act as a sort of "cowboy" in the prosecution of crimes committed on foreign soil. Whether this is also a crime in US soil or even whether the repercussions of the crime affect Americans cannot be a basis for prosecution, unless, as I said, you have a very open understanding of universal jurisdiction. But then again, the US refuses to allow other nations to apply this principle when it comes to "crimes" committed by US persons on foreign soil, so... hmmmmmmm

  A.T.


----------



## ave_turuta (Aug 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> This issue is far different, a Canadian citizen has committed a crime in the US by exporting a controlled substance in to the US on repeated occassions, simultaneously violating US and Canadian.


 No, he hasn't. None of the clippings said he had committed a crime on US soil. I'll give you another example: imagine you have a friend who is a permanent US resident but is a citizen of, say, Iran, where homosexuality is punishable by death. Now, this person lives in the US and runs a website that people in Iran can read on gay and lesbian rights. Now, imagine Iran being so concerned about this that they decide to try this person for "crimes against nature" and requests the extradition of this person for a "crime" that is only so in Iran and that further, has been committed on US soil, where that particular action is ****not**** a crime. Most naturally, the US would refuse to extradite this person, even if s/he was an Iranian citizen, because of a plethora of reasons. The point is, nations cannot freely claim jurisdiction over actions that are committed on foreign soil without a certain set of conditions being met. The actions of this person affecting US citizens or US territory is not, per se, a sufficient fact to justify extradition to a foreign court of law, unless you are operating under a treaty. but then, the person is a foreign citizen adn has the right to be tried according to the laws of the country where the "crime" has been committed, then fight extradition on the terms set by that same law, regardless of what the treaty says. I am a foreign national living in the United States: one of the first things you learn when you live in a foreign country is that even as a foreign citizen, you are subject to the laws of that territory. Very important rule. The US cannot become a global police and enforce its own laws on foreign citizens of foreign nations; unless, of course, they wish the same thing to happen to them and have US citizens extradited to foreign nations and be tried by foreign courts. It's a very serious matter. Because the US and Canada have signed an extradition treaty, it would seem at first as if the US had an unquestionnable right to extradite this person. However, reading the treaty itself (see below) I do not have such a clear idea any longer, for it seems as if this person cuold actually fight extradition on several grounds. 

 The US has made the consistent argument, for instance, that Augusto Pinochet cannot be tried in Spain for crimes committed against Spanish citizens in Chile. Why, then, does it claim jurisdiction over a guy who is committing a crime on foreign soil??? Double standards, it seems to me. 

    peace, 

    A.T.


----------



## ave_turuta (Aug 15, 2005)

I have been doing a little bit of research on the *extradition treaty* between canada and the US. Here are some of the articles I think are of relevance: 

_*Article 3(3)*: (3) When the offense for which extradition has been requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State, the executive or other appropriate authority of the requested State shall have the power to grant the extradition _*if the laws of the requested State provide for jurisdiction over such an offense committed in similar circumstances.

*First point, then, is to determine whether this is applicable or not. 

_*Article 4: (1)*__Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:_ _(i) *When the person whose surrender is sought is being proceeded against, or has been tried and discharged or punished in the territory of the requested State for the offense for which his extradition is requested.*_

_(ii) 	When the prosecution for the offense has become barred by lapse of time according to the laws of the requesting State._

_(iii)         *When the offense in respect of which extradition is requested is of a political character, or the person whose extradition is requested proves that the extradition request has been made for the purpose of trying or punishing him for an offense of the above-mentioned character.* If any question arises as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this subparagraph, the authorities of the Government on which the requisition is made shall decide._

 	 	  If this person is tried and punished in canada, he cannot be extradited, period. Furthermore, even if he wasn't, he could still fight extradition charges arguing that the push behind the exztradition petition has more to do with political reasons than with having comitted a crime, given the very complicated nature of legislative changes occuring in the US when it comes to issues of marihuana consumption and distribution, etc. 

*Article 8*

_The determination that extradition should or should not be granted shall be made in accordance with the law of the requested State and the person whose extradition is sought shall have the right to use all remedies and recourses provided by such law.
_

 There are other pertinent articles such as art. 2 which you can study if clicking on the link above. 


 A.T.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 16, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> I have been doing a little bit of research on the *extradition treaty* between canada and the US. Here are some of the articles I think are of relevance:
> 
> _*Article 3(3)*: (3) When the offense for which extradition has been requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State, the executive or other appropriate authority of the requested State shall have the power to grant the extradition _*if the laws of the requested State provide for jurisdiction over such an offense committed in similar circumstances.*
> 
> ...


 You haven't made your point. He has not been tried for the crime in Canada, so that point is moot. Further, drug prosecution is not a political issue, the essence of that part of the statute is to deal with crimes that are truly political, such as authoring a book against another government, or speaking out or engaging in activities of a political nature. The importation/exportation of an illegal substance with a profit motive falls well outside of any reasonable or coherent definition of "political crime". 

Sorry, but your interpretation of drug dealing as a political crime tortures the definition of political crime and insults those who are truly fleeing from political oppression.


----------



## ave_turuta (Aug 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You haven't made your point. He has not been tried for the crime in Canada, so that point is moot. Further, drug prosecution is not a political issue, the essence of that part of the statute is to deal with crimes that are truly political, such as authoring a book against another government, or speaking out or engaging in activities of a political nature. The importation/exportation of an illegal substance with a profit motive falls well outside of any reasonable or coherent definition of "political crime". Sorry.


 True, true. I am just pointing out the fact that if he is tried in Canada then he could not be tried in the United States. For starters, the news clippiings themselves were a little confusing and did not contain all the necessary information to make an informed judgement, imho. In any event, it is the Canadian authorities that have to decide whether they extradite him or not... 

 Peace, 
 A.T.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 16, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> No, he hasn't. None of the clippings said he had committed a crime on US soil. I'll give you another example: imagine you have a friend who is a permanent US resident but is a citizen of, say, Iran, where homosexuality is punishable by death. Now, this person lives in the US and runs a website that people in Iran can read on gay and lesbian rights. Now, imagine Iran being so concerned about this that they decide to try this person for "crimes against nature" and requests the extradition of this person for a "crime" that is only so in Iran and that further, has been committed on US soil, where that particular action is ****not**** a crime. Most naturally, the US would refuse to extradite this person, even if s/he was an Iranian citizen, because of a plethora of reasons. The point is, nations cannot freely claim jurisdiction over actions that are committed on foreign soil without a certain set of conditions being met. The actions of this person affecting US citizens or US territory is not, per se, a sufficient fact to justify extradition to a foreign court of law, unless you are operating under a treaty. but then, the person is a foreign citizen adn has the right to be tried according to the laws of the country where the "crime" has been committed, then fight extradition on the terms set by that same law, regardless of what the treaty says. I am a foreign national living in the United States: one of the first things you learn when you live in a foreign country is that even as a foreign citizen, you are subject to the laws of that territory. Very important rule. The US cannot become a global police and enforce its own laws on foreign citizens of foreign nations; unless, of course, they wish the same thing to happen to them and have US citizens extradited to foreign nations and be tried by foreign courts. It's a very serious matter. Because the US and Canada have signed an extradition treaty, it would seem at first as if the US had an unquestionnable right to extradite this person. However, reading the treaty itself (see below) I do not have such a clear idea any longer, for it seems as if this person cuold actually fight extradition on several grounds.
> 
> The US has made the consistent argument, for instance, that Augusto Pinochet cannot be tried in Spain for crimes committed against Spanish citizens in Chile. Why, then, does it claim jurisdiction over a guy who is committing a crime on foreign soil??? Double standards, it seems to me.
> 
> ...


 Ah, but you are going off on a tangent. In order for the treaty to be valid, the crime committed would have to violate both Iranian and US law, and the US would have to have no interest in prosecuting the subject. What this gentleman did was a crime in Canada, but Canada currently has no interest in persuing it, as they are content to have th US pursue it.  It fits the spirit and the letter of the extradition law.   

A better analogy, since this has to do with mailing drugs. Ted Kaczynski builds a bomb and then mails it, from Montana, to a professor in California. The professor receives the bomb, and then opens it. It explodes, killing him. 
Now, Ted has obviously committed a crime in Montana, building a bomb, mailing it, etc. However, the lesser crimes aside (they can be charged to) lets consider the murder itself.

Now, Ted never left Montana. Where did the murder take place? Did it take place in Montana? Hardly. But wait, Ted never left Montana, did he? No. But it's obvious, the murder took place in California. Ted intended the murder to take place in California, the fact that Ted did all this from Montana doesn't change that fact.

Now, lets assume fictional Ted. Ted mails a bomb to Canada, it explodes and kills someone. Where do you want him tried for murder? He never left the US. 

If you say he must be tried in Canada, then you've already lost this argument. The fact that it's about pot only leads it to become an emotional issue, not a legal one.


----------



## ave_turuta (Aug 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Ah, but you are going off on a tangent. In order for the treaty to be valid, the crime committed would have to violate both Iranian and US law, and the US would have to have no interest in prosecuting the subject. What this gentleman did was a crime in Canada, but Canada currently has no interest in persuing it, as they are content to have th US pursue it. It fits the spirit and the letter of the extradition law.
> 
> A better analogy, since this has to do with mailing drugs. Ted Kaczynski builds a bomb and then mails it, from Montana, to a professor in California. The professor receives the bomb, and then opens it. It explodes, killing him.
> Now, Ted has obviously committed a crime in Montana, building a bomb, mailing it, etc. However, the lesser crimes aside (they can be charged to) lets consider the murder itself.
> ...


 Still, your criticism does not resolve the basic challenge posed by the principle of universal jurisdiction: does a particular nation have the right to prosecute crimes committed by people outside of its territory? Secondly: my example on homosexuality is still relevant because homosexuality was in fact a crime in several US states until recently, save the penalty was not, of course, the death penalty. As you well say, the US may have no interest in prosecuting the offense, even if it's a crime in its books. But still the question remains: does the US submit to the will of a foreign nation asking for extradition, particularly in a case where the ending result can be the death of this individual? Most naturally, this is not the same as the case discussed here because (a) the nations involved have signed a treaty; and (b) both nations share a common concern for the respect of democratic institutions adnthe separation of powers. However, this is again where the question of politics comes in: this person could very well argue that although his actions are technically punishable under Canadian law, these are rarely applied and that the result of his extradiction to the US could potentially result in him receiving a much harsher punishment than he would in Canada for the same crime. I don't think it's a matter of "emotions," but rather an issue that comes to show how different conceptions of what constitutes "crime" can actually create lots of problems. And this is a juridical matter, not an emotional one. 

 But regardless; another point I find problematic in your example is the indefinition as to where the crime actually occurs: yes, the ***murder*** occurs in Canadian soil, but the ***crime*** can be interpreted to occur in US territory. In the particular example you offer, I personally believe he should be tried in a US court of law, since the action of mailing a bomb with the intention of killing can only result (from the perspective of the criminal) in murder. Thus the crime is committed on US soil. In any event: should Canada decide to prosecute this person fro the same crimes he is being accused of by the US, the US has no grounds for extradiction. If Canada doesn't, then the Canadian authorities must determine whether all the applicable causes of the extradition treaty can lead to his extradiction to the US. It is, in any event, a matter for the Canadians (not the US) to decide, since extradiction is ultimately granted by the other country and, if they say "no" and argue it juridically in a sound manner, there is little US authorities can do. 

  Peace, 
  A.T.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 16, 2005)

Sorry, you are factually incorrect in your interpretation of jurisdiction. The crime of murder inarguably took place in Canada in our theoretical construct. No murder took place on US soil, so the US has no jurisdiction for trying him for murder. They can try him for violation of mail laws, for possessing a dangerous device, even for terroristic acts, but the murder firmly resides on Canadian soil.

Beyond that, your last sentence really ties this together.  You said of one nation disputes extradition, then the US can't touch them.  Well, Canada has NOT disputed it.  So the issue is moot.


----------



## chinto (May 20, 2007)

Flatlander said:


> We have an extradition treaty wherein we will extradite a Canadian citizen to the US if they have committed a crime in the US. The stipulation is that we must also consider it a crime here.
> 
> Emery broke the law, but, due to the political conditions and potential upcoming changes to these laws, the BC police are not enforcing these laws, as they are choosing other areas of focus (organized crime is pretty big there.)
> 
> ...


 

the coment i would make to this is that extradition laws exist with resiprosity between Canada and the US. if you violate canadian law from the US i would expect that the canadians could issue a warrent and request extradition, then the courts would decide if the treaty aplied.


----------

