Australian Extradited For Breaking US Law At Home 777
An anonymous reader sends us a link to a report in The Age about an Australian resident, who had never set foot in the US and broke US intellectual-property laws in Australia, being extradited to the US to face trial. Hew Raymond Griffiths pleaded guilty in Virginia to overseeing all aspects of the operation of the group Drink Or Die, which cracked copy-protected software and media products and distributed them for free. He faces up to 10 years in a US jail and half a million dollars in fines.
Why is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Listen... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since we don't want criminals using national borders to shield themselves, a large number of nations have extradition treaties with each other. There are restrictions on those treaties, for example Canada can refuse to extradite in cases where the person would face the death penalty, but in general if it is a legit request, the extradition is honoured.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming you're American, would you want to be extradited to Australia for breaking an Australian law in the US even though you'd never been to Australia?
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, the guy violated copyright law - Australian copyright law, as mentioned in TFA, However, since the unlawful act was carried out in Australia, I have no idea why he can't be sentenced there. The US argument is presumably that the copyright owners are in the US, but so what? If I injure a German person while he visits France, should I be extradited to Germany from France? This whole issue just seems bizarre.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
I would want the US to try him under US law for the crime of murder.
British members of Drink or Die were tried in Britain. The Australian government is too cowardly to do the same. He's one of ours and allegedly committed a crime on our soil so we should deal with him. There is no way to justify this forfeiture of Australia's sovereignty. Whoever authorised the capitulation should be lined up and shot for treason.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
He may well be a prolific software pirate but this seems fishy to me, and the precedent it sets worries me more. "Any Australian who has pirated software worth more than $US1000 could be subject to the same extradition process as Griffiths was." Thats a whole lotta Aussies right there.
He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the fact that he isn't under US jurisdiction?
He most certainly is under US jurisdiction. We own the Australian government, which means we own Australia, which means we own your ass. Break our laws and we'll slam you in our prisons, because we can, and it makes us money to do so.
Welcome to the new world order, Bush (Sr., Jr.) and Clinton style.
Until Australia (and, for that matter, the UK) learns to stand up to the world's biggest bully (what to my immense shame is what my country, the United States, has become), they and their people will be under our jurisdiction, subject to our laws on their own soil, and with no protection from their own governments. Just like the soviet satellite states of the last century, we'll let you wave your own flags and call yourselves whatever you like, but fuck with us and our cash flow, and we'll slam you into our gulag.
You want this to not be the case? Then elect and demand a government with some backbone that will tell the United States exactly where it can get off.
Wanna bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
They do.
Just so long as it doesn't involve US citizens. Or military personnel.
Re:Glad to be German (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
The Australian government lacks the backbone to stand up to other (bigger) countries like the US and Indonesia in any meaningful way.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
This case does not appear to be based on any of those theories of jurisdiction. According to the article, the US charged Mr. Griffiths with conspiracy. Under conspiracy, any one conspirator is liable for the acts of any other person in the conspiracy.
This is very troublesome when applied to such a mundane crime as copying works and giving them to people who never would have bought them in the first place. The actual effect of the conspiracy is arguably insignificant. It doesn't seem as troublesome when applied to something who planned the 9/11 attacks, where the effect is very significant. But the theory of jurisdiction is the same: conspiracy with people who committed criminal acts inside the prosecuting country.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason any of this seems OK is because it's going on between countries with similar laws. If the laws of two countries are too different nobody would thing it was a good idea. It would be like the US trying to extradite someone from Amsterdam for smoking pot. What if Iran decided it wants to extradite someone for breaking their laws? Doesn't seem like such a good idea does it?
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:3, Insightful)
Women must be 2nd class here (Score:2, Insightful)
(And me before you get all technical on me, I did say primarily women, but men can be raped as well...)
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Thankfully we still have some sanity here in NZ. Although there was perhaps some keenness to hitch up withAustralia in the 1980s and 1990s, less kiwis think thta way now.
all things Global (Score:2, Insightful)
the GlobalJail may be the first real implementation.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Can we now ask the US to send over all those people selling Nazi-Flags and WW2 memorabilia because it's illegal to have and sell them here?
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
If an American currently in Australia is mugged then that crime is comitted in Australia. The fact that American interests (people) were affected does not mean that the offence was comitted in the USA.
The global nature of the Internet does make the location of some crimes ambiguous but that doesn't make it right to just go ahead and pick a jurisdiction.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, yes, actually, it's called "sovereignty" and other countries get to have it too! Sucks for us, don't it?
If you want to stop "harm to American interests" then the appropriate method of doing it is to deal with the UN and international law, not to bully other countries into following our national ones.
It's an extradition treaty... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, by the way, I'm sure you and just about every other American has done enough things that are illegal in some country that we'd be locked up for life, or worse, if we were extradited there. Have sex outside of marriage, or in some "deviant" (i.e., anything other than missionary) position? I'll bet that's a capital offense in some religion-infested place. Spit on the sidewalk? That'll land you in prison in Indonesia. Drive on the right side of the road? Ooh, that's a severe violation in England and Japan! Remember, it doesn't matter that you were driving down Route 66 at the time...
Now, think of the madness that would ensue if everyone were as stupid and shortsighted as you are. Aren't you glad you're not in charge?
Re:Sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Hrngh. No.
The guy has been accused of violating copyright law by certain people in the US. He has not been convicted. The question of his guilt has not even been examined by a court. He has been extradited not for violating copyright law, but for being accused of violating copyright law.
If somebody in the US accused you of violating copyright law, you can be extradited too. It does not matter whether you did it. The US extradition treaties do not operate on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", they operate on the principle of "everybody is guilty" - proof is not required, requested, or considered. A bureaucrat signs a form and you get shipped into a US jail. (At their option, this can be a US jail that isn't located on US soil, like Gitmo, so they aren't obliged to ever examine whether you are guilty of anything)
Re:Glad to be German (Score:3, Insightful)
Well actually they do, but call it "extraordinary rendition" instead.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
The US, at the moment, is not behaving as befits a leader in freedom and human rights. It's traditional allies should stand up and refuse to endorse the excesses. We are not helping our friends in the US by pandering to their government and corporate world's ugly abuses.
If you were to suffer a mental illness and set fire to your own house, who would be the better neighbor; the one who tried to stop you, and tried to extinguish the fire, or the one who followed you into the flames?
Re:Why is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
A gentleman was recently sentenced to 10 years in Thailand because he defaced a picture of the King of Thailand while in that country. If I, while in the US, create a website that defames the King of Thailand do you expect the US would send me there to do my time? What if my website where written in the Thai language with the blatant intent of being available not only to Thai citizens, but for Thai citizens?
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Glad to be German (Score:5, Insightful)
Well as a UK Citizen, we signed an agreement that allowed USUK extradition.
However, the US hasn't, and won't sign their half !!!
In contract-law speak, this is called being 'screwed over'.
Blair (et al.) doesn't have the balls to revoke our ratification, despite the fact that several high-profile extradition cases have gone to the high court, and several high profile US->UK cases are just piling up, e.g. US servicemen causing in a large proportion of UK military deaths and casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan.
To quote one US airman, who had just strafed and killed solders in a UK convoy - "Man, we're going to jail.". But luckily, US laws only apply when/where they say it does.
I've known for a while... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fools who were so adamant for Australia's split with the English monarchy now failed to realise one crucial detail; Australia's genuine independence is never going to happen. If we split with England entirely, America will rush in to fill the void before anyone can blink.
Welcome to the 51st state.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Based on this case, Aussies should have the right to vote for American president and to have their elected representatives in US Congress and Senate - If a Law applies on you, you should be entitled to participate in electing the lawmakers. Law is not law and justice a justice if we didn't agree upon it in a democratic process. Else, it is not called law, but tyranny.
Terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
The fundamental questions is, what do you do when someone from another country harms your citizens or destroys their property? Criminals used run for the state or country border to avoid prosecution. No they just play in the fuzzy areas of national sovereignty. Many of the conflicts in the world follow this pattern. In this case Australia decided to hand the criminal over the the US for prosecution. Maybe they are trying to send a message to criminals hiding behind these gray areas of sovereignty.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone needs to ask for the extradition of your president and our prime minister for crimes against humanity - starting illegal wars, killing 10,000s of civilian non-combatants, detention without trial and lots more bad things.
Obviously they are not illegal in the USA or the UK because they say so, but there are lots of places where this sort of behaviour is against the rules. If such extraditions are not a good thing, perhaps someone should say why mass murder is less important than intellectual "property".
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
We're a similar culture, a similar government, a common language, but the US doesn't "own" us any more than we "own" the US.
Just because we don't agree with the law being enforced doesn't mean we should complain about common laws being enforced across borders, it means we should be against that common law.
International cooperation is good, the law is bad.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, this is about representation first and foremost -- but the responsibility lies with citizens of other countries to ensure that their own governments protect them.
US laws -- and constitutional rights -- apply to US citizens. I'm not especially concerned about what other countries allow us to do to their own citizens. That doesn't mean I like it or condone it, but quite frankly these are the same people who deride us and our country on a regular basis. It strikes me as a little odd that their own paradisaical existence can be so terribly flawed as to permit them to be bundled up and submitted for processing by the big bad United States. Huh, maybe problems of government aren't unique to the US? Imagine that.
Re:If I was stealing AUS shit, yes, I'd expect to (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Criticizing China is not a crime in the US, so there would be no reason to extradite. Additionally, extradition laws typically require that the defendant can expect a fair trial (not the case in China) and may contain other requirements (prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, for example).
Re:If I was stealing AUS shit, yes, I'd expect to (Score:1, Insightful)
Dangerous Precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
What is wrong with this? What's wrong is wrong, right? Well, the problem is that, in a democracy, citizens need to have a say in how they are governed. The law is not an absolute and universal code. It is there to serve the people, and the people are therefore responsible for writing the laws they are governed by. With these extraditions, suddenly citizens can be governed by laws they had no say or representation in writing.
If these extraditions are allowed to continue, citizens may face penalties for things that are legal in their own country, or penalties far harsher than their country would normally permit. As a ridiculous example, say that the U.S. signed such an extradition treaty with an asian nation where drug running was punishable by death. (Yes, this example is ridiculous because, as others have pointed out, the U.S. tends to be "more equal" than other nations in this sort of treaty.) Say that a U.S. citizen who never left U.S. soil masterminded a drug ring which was responsible for sending large ammounts of drugs to this asian country, so that asian country requested his extradition, got it, tried him, and executed him. (Again, I admit this example is ridiculous. I merely use it to convey the principle of my argument.)
This extradition sets a dangerous precedent, and I sincerely hope that the Australian government comes to its senses before it's too late. Protecting IP just isn't worth this kind of legal fascism.
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, a few too many Australians. 40% of them voted for him directly, and another 6% for the national party with which they have a formal alliance. Due to the allocation of preferences this allowed them to ultimately win power. But you could not say that the majority of voters directly voted for him at the last election.
It certainly looks like alot less are going to vote for him now for our unconditional support in invading Iraq. The disaster that Iraq has proven to be wasn't so evident in 2004 at the last election, at least to the general public.
Its not like that many Australian companies have even had sweetheart deals with Iraq - so its hard to see even the commercial gain for the venture for Australia.
Whilst I think that most Australians (myself included) would support the US in any war or real threat to US soil, few of us really want to go invading other countries without good reason. One of the major holidays in Australia, ANZAC day, reminds us yearly of the horrors of unnecessary wars. The words we repeat at the end of the dawn service is "Lest we forget". It reflects the Australian ethos that war is a bad thing, and we should remember this. Sadly, it would seem that John Howard did forget the horror of war when he chose to support the invasion of Iraq.
Anyway, for the majority of Australians who didn't actually vote for John Howard at the last election, I think we are entitled to grumble a little.
But I certainly agree with you that we have no right to blame the US for our mistakes. Including John Howard. That was all our own doing.
Michael
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:0, Insightful)
Bullshit, the American people are the ones who voted these clowns in office. Twice.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
A very apt description of the relationship between Australia and the US, Howard and Bush.
And since John Howard is another Bush-like proto-fascist authoritarian, it should not surprise that his administration would play fast and loose with outdated concepts like "rights" and "sovereignty".
John Howard has chosen to lead Australia by following George Bush into the flames of his phony "war on terror", and the rest of us will have to live in the hell they leave behind.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but actually, yes, I'd want it that way.
Think about it for a moment. Did he break any Australian laws? If the answer is "yes", then I don't see what the problem is with putting him on trial in Australia; certainly, if an Australian citizen breaks Australian law while on Australian soil, putting him on trial before an Australian court (and possibly sending him to an Australian prison) is a natural thing to do. If the answer is "no", on the other hand, then what legal basis is there for arresting and extraditing him? If he didn't break any Australian laws, then he didn't break any Australian laws, and there is no justification for an extradition: otherwise, the USA could just as well extradite US citizens to Turkey because they talk about [wikipedia.org] the Armenian genocide, for example. I think it's obvious that this is not a good idea.
So what *is* the justification for extraditing your own citizens to a foreign country they've never been to? I could understand extradition if a US citizen who committed a crime in the USA fled to Australia; I *might* accept it if an Australian citizen committed a crime in the USA and then returned home (although I'm not really sure about that); but extraditing an Australian citizen who committed a crime in Australia and never visited the USA *at all*... that's simply unacceptable.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If I was stealing AUS shit, yes, I'd expect to (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I moderate on the merits of the post. I have stopped correcting spelling/grammar errors by followup comment as I've discovered that English is not the first language of many posters, although their point of view is as valid as mine. Please don't be misled by the fraction of slashdotters who are loud-mouthed assholes and swagger around like ultra-patriots. Since this is supposedly a free nation, all of us must suffer the inelegant employment of that freedom by some in order to justify our own. I repeat, we are not a monolithic nation, but I concede it could look that way from afar...
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFA: "...Griffiths, 44, is in a Virginia cell, facing up to 10 years in an American prison after a guilty plea late last month...."
This means the "accused" admitted he was wrong. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, his "question of guilt" has been examined by a court. Actually, there is not even a question of guilt, but an admission of guilt. He convicted himself in court. No need for the whole process. How many more times do I have to say he's guilty as examined by a court. A judge even has the chance to look at the facts of the case with a guilty plea and say "there's no case here, dismissed." But, that is not happening here because what occurred is legal in the US, Australia, and international law.
Better check your facts next time. Oh, wait; this is Slashdot.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Women must be 2nd class here (Score:3, Insightful)
Get real. And see a shrink.
When is extradition appropriate? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think some people may be missing the point.
Griffiths has admitted to copyright infringement, which is criminal in both USA and Australia (and almost all other countries). It doesn't matter that the victim of the crime lives in another country; imagine if you could send threatening letters or bombs to someone, and get away with it just because the victim lives outside your country's jurisdiction. As long as you commit the act while being within the borders of your country, and the act is criminal, you could and should be put on trial.
The weird part is putting Griffiths on trial in USA instead of Australia. The act has been perpetrated on Australian soil by an Australian citizen, so Australian law and Australian courts should apply. Only the victim lives in USA.
I suspect this is yet another symptom of the hübris of US-American government: they think their rules should apply to everyone else. If a US citizen commits a crime against someone in a foreign country, he is put on trial in USA. If a foreign citizen commits a crime against someone in the USA, the US government wants to put him on trial in USA too. US government believes it should have the jurisdiction over any crime that is committed in USA, *or* by a US citizen, *or* against a US citizen, even though it conflicts with every other country's right to do the same.
And, of course, it's also a symptom of the lack of backbone of the rest of the world.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If I was stealing AUS shit, yes, I'd expect to (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. From outside the US I see a bunch of right-wingers arguing with another bunch of right-wingers about how far to the right the most acceptable form of government is. Now if you actually had a party that was on the left, then you might be able to call the voting public polarized, but until then...
Bob
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:3, Insightful)
The Australian in question has never physically been in the US until he was extradited. The crime(from the view of US law) was committed wholly outside of US borders.
This extradition is dangerously close to Australia subjecting their sovereignty [wikipedia.org] to the US.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vice versa (Score:3, Insightful)
As for extradition, yes it pretty much only works one way. The U.S. only follows the law when it benefits the U.S. That's why we use "international law, the UN, and international courts to bully countries like Iraq, North Korea, and Iran--then ignore them completely when they call *US* to task.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sadly, there are few religious people in America. The churches are full, but for the most part those people aren't Christians. They're there because they're supposed to be; they're expected to go to church so they go. But they don't have a clue what Christ was about. Bush pretends to be a Christian, yet as Governor of Texas he executed more men than any other Governor of any state, ever, despite Moses' command that "thou shalt not kill" (and he's killed how many people in a senseless war in Iraq?) Pat Roberston as well, calling for the assassination of a foreign leader because of that leader's politics - and this man is supposed to be a preacher! Like the Reverend Jesse Jackson and the other black Reverend Whatsisface who were calling for Don Imus' firing for saying "nappy headed" when they both have publically called Jewish people "Hymies".
No, there are a lot of people here who would like you to think they are religious, but most are the wolves in sheep's clothing that Christ warned about. A clue is around their neck. The necktie is the symbol of wealth and power, which is the antithesis of Christianity. It is Satan's leash. Never trust a "Christian" who wears one.
The same could likely be said about Muslims in the middle East, who share the same Old Testament as Christians and Jews. Truly religious people do NOT call for the deaths of their fellow human beings. Period. If George Bin Laden orders someone to kill someone else, then Osama Bin Bush is neither Christian, Muslim, nor Hebrew (nor Bhuddist; Bhuddists worship life itself).
The Popes who ordered wiches to be hung were not religious. The kings who ordered the Crusades were not religious. The Muslims who crashed airplanes into buildings were not religious, and the Jews who order the bombings of Palestine are not religious.
Much evil has been done throughout history in the name of God, but the people who did this evil were not of God. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. Don't judge me by people who pretend to be like me.
-mcgrew
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
When your governments don't stand up to ours it hurts us as much as it does you.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Now you give the murderer a BFG - he sits in Australia picking off Americans one by one via long range death.
To you propose to let him off? He never left Austrailia, never killed anyone there, etc.
He committed a crime in a foriegn country. Both his country and the foriegn country 1) agree that the accusation is about an actionable crime, and 2) agree that people should be tried in the country where the damage was done.
This isn't unusual, this is how law enforcement works, people!
Re:Benign Superpower.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Who in Austrailia is damaged by copyright infringement against US companies? Why on Earth would you hold the trial there? (Mind you, they do hold a hearing in Australia to make sure that the charges are valid and warrant extradition. But that won't be discussed on Slashdot, eh?)
Australia no longer its own country ? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm divided on this issue. For one, the accused is a lead member of what was one of the largest software pirate groups in the world, which is pretty crazy compared to the buddy-trading we used to do in the 80's and 90's
I can't lie, I want to see this guy walk free, on principle. World leaders want to go on having their separate countries, distinct law systems and economic boundaries... well they have to go all the way! I don't think it's reasonable to open the borders whenever some high-ranking official deems it "necessary", but keep them closed for everything else. If Australia wants to be USA's sock puppet, they might as well become the 51st state and enjoy ALL the benefits of being part of the USA, including their foreign policy.
"G'day mate! I'm Canajun!"
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting how you equate something like breaking copyright to a much more heinous crime like illegal drug manufacturing. Dude, seriously, it's goddamn software.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If I was stealing AUS shit, yes, I'd expect to (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, until you notice the fact that in the US 'left' politicians hold similar positions on contemporary political topics to those held by centrist politicians in most other nations. As for 'right' and 'far right' candidates....well, in most other countries they would most likely be locked up for being a public menace.
Sure, Americans are pretty polarized. But political opinion in the US appears to occupy only one half of the political spectrum.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:2, Insightful)
But hey, who cares right? After all, they're muslims and therefore untermensch. It's not as though core principles of the US like justice and equality actually mean anything. Also, 24 is a documentary series and Fox News is completely unbiased.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
The US has never been a leader, or even decent, as far as freedom and human rights go. It was found on genocide and slavery, expanded by conquering territory by warfare, proceeded to become the only nation to ever have used nuclear weapons against humans (not to mention civilian targets), supported one bloodthirsty dictator and guerrilla movement after another during the Cold War, and continues its track record of corpse production with Iraq War and Guantamano Bay. It has the largest prison population in the entire world, and the epidemic of rape in said prisons is a running joke to its population. It is one (only ?) of the few industrialized countries which still has death penalty. Bribery is an accepted procedure of its highest levels of politics, and the highest leaders have openly declared themselves to be above the law.
Just where did you get this utterly ridiculous idea that the US is a leader in freedom or human rights ? When has it ever stood up for those ?
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the difference between good and evil is that good doesn't do evil while evil does. Evil doesn't neccessarily desire to do evil, it simply has nothing against doing it either when it will (in its subjective opinion) benefit from it. Good doesn't do evil even when it would (in its subjective opinion) benefit from it. That's why most people tend towards evil: it is the path you follow naturally if you don't care about the pain you cause; your own comments about not giving RATS ASS about "muslim sensitivities" and the acts this lack of caring would lead you to being a perfect example of that.
But if you do evil things (such as torture people), don't lie to yourself; you are being evil, no matter how relucatantly you did those actions, because you still did them.
Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
That aggressive right-to-might belief is a fundamental strategic error, and used as a ruse to centralize power by increasing insecurity, and thus reduce the need for false flag operations.
When you invade other countries, hell, when you put over 700 military bases in foreign countries, establish an international influence-pervert-abduct-torture network, establish a global disinformation campaign, spend more money on the rule of force than the rest of the world combined, work with tyrants, and work hand-in-hand with industry to shift capital and control away from sovereignty everywhere, well, people will be pissed off.
When you try to crush the few extreme radicals that this naturally results in, by killing lots of civilians and destroying infrastructure (and thus ways of life), hey presto, many many more radicals with nothing left to lose. The US military is a radical-producing machine.
When you put a military base on holy land of a competing militant religion and use it to create more displaced refugees--oh look, suicide bombers.
Yes, I'm saying that spending a trillion dollars annually on international education/propaganda and diplomacy rather than military aggression would have resulted in greater security for the USA (but fewer riches for the shareholders of lockheed-martin and halliburton et al). Too late now, though, you got the enemies you were looking for, and it will take a generation to make peace.
10 not so easy steps (Score:3, Insightful)
Democracy is incompatible with freedom and liberty.
Re:Is the Senator aware of US prison conditions? (Score:2, Insightful)
My objection to this is over the simple fact that whatever crime(s) he may have committed were committed in Australia, so whether or not he should go to prison, and where and for how long, or even whether he should be arrested and tried, is purely a matter for the Australian government to decide. Extraditing him is ludicrous.
This is very different than, say, picking some terrorist up on the battlefield, finding he's an Australian citizen, and remanding him to the Australian government to serve his sentence in Australia after being convicted and sentenced. If that guy, who is a far worse criminal than a copyright offender, can serve his sentence in Australia, the accused in the present case should most certainly not be extradited at all.
Has the Australian government lost all concept of national sovereignty?
Re:voting for the other guy (Score:2, Insightful)
If you vote for a party or candidate that does not enter office, how has your vote counted at all? How is it any different from people that throw away their vote by not voting?
I dont vote. Why? Because the two big parties here (they constantly hover at ~45% and ~35% in polls) do exactly the same thing when they get elected - over and over again for the last 85 years or so. The remaining ~20% or so have zero power, and when they go into coalition always tow the majority line. How is that democracy? How is that worth voting for when you disagree totally with the 80% do and also quite a bit with what the remaining 20% do? 99% of politicians here are in it for the money. The remaining 1% are in it to get something done - and they soon realise they are wasting their time. Who would you vote for?
Feel free to play "guess the country" if you dont wish to discuss politics. That usually far more fun in fact.