US Law now enforcable in Canada?

[sgtmac_46]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]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]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.

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.