Australian Extradited For Breaking US Law At Home

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.

Vice versa

Can someone point out a few cases where the news was somewhere along the lines of "American Extradited For Breaking [fill in foreign country] Law At Home" or does this business only work one way?

Re:Vice versa

A quick search turned up a story on Duane "Dog" Chapman, a supposed bounty hunter who was wanted in Mexico. I hadn't heard of this until I looked it up so I can't guarantee any facts. He was arrested by US marshals and held pending being extradited to Mexico (some [tvsquad.com] TV show's [nbc10.com] coverage). It looks like they'll extradite him unless his supporters can convince the Mexican government to drop the charges (resolution here [hawaii.gov]).

I also have another one of a foreigner being sent to the US [bbc.co.uk] -- so it's not just Australia -- not that that's a good thing.

Some conjecture that I can't back up follows: I've read that the US rarely agrees to send their citizens overseas, rather just denying the extradition requests when they are in the courts.

Re:Vice versa

Yes, but "Dog" actually committed the crime in Mexico. This guy hasn't been to the US and was willing to plead guilty in an Australian court. This is a fucked up situation here.

Needs to be said

Others, however, argue that extradition is necessary to prevent internet crimes that transcend borders.

But yet nothing is done to catch the 419 scammers and all the spammers selling (often fake) pharmaceuticals.

Glad to be German

I'm a bit stunned that Australian law obviously allows extraditing their citizens to other countries. Here in Germany such action is _strictly_ prohibited by the German Constitution.

Re:Glad to be German

That is no longer true; the german constitution has been changed recently and now allows extraditions of germans to other countries of the european union or to an international court. You can't be extradited to the USA though :)

(This is specified in Art. 16 (2) GG: http://www.datenschutz-berlin.de/recht/de/gg/gg1_d e.htm#art16 [datenschutz-berlin.de] )

EU Expedited Extradition

Not exactly, you signed up to the EU Extradited extradition which permits extradition for crimes including computer crimes (e.g. breaking DRM, no kidding). However that only applies to within the EU. But if the US can get a puppet government (e.g. Blairville) to issue a warrant for anyone in Europe, they can then extradite using the UK to US expedited extradition treaty.

There's no limits on re-extradition.

Worse, there is no judicial check in the UK, that the reasons given for the extradition, really complies with the requirements for extraditing. This is why a McKinnon (who broke US PCs into had a look around and left) is being accused of doing $5000 damage to each PC, in order for it to be a Federal crime and hence extraditable. The extradition mechanism doesn't let a UK judge check it.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/25/extraditio n_hacker/ [theregister.co.uk]

In theory they could make any allegation against any UK citizen and get them extradited (kidnapped in effect) and the court could do nothing.

[rant]F***ing Blair. We elected a leader, and he became a Bush follower and sold us out. I'll piss on his grave when he dies for the damage he's done to the UK sovereignty. [/rant]

Re:Glad to be German

Yeah,
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.

Re:Glad to be German

However, the US hasn't, and won't sign their half !!!

Actually, see this press release [usembassy.org.uk] from a week and a half ago:

The United Kingdom and United States have today ratified a bilateral extradition treaty

Took them a long time, but they've finally done it.

Wanna bet...

... the war on terror made this extradition a lot easier?

This is entirely unacceptable.

This is horrendous. I don't condone what he has done, but I contend that this should fall squarely and solely within the sovereign boundaries of Australia. We have a perfectly acceptable method of pursuing him for the same offence - either s 132AC(1) or s 132AC(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), which provide respectively:

(1) A person commits an offence if:

                                          (a) the person engages in conduct; and

                                          (b) the conduct results in one or more infringements of the copyright in a work or other subjectmatter; and

                                          (c) the infringement or infringements have a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright; and

                                          (d) the infringement or infringements occur on a commercial scale.

(2) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than 550 penalty units or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.

                          (3) A person commits an offence if:

                                          (a) the person engages in conduct; and

                                          (b) the conduct results in one or more infringements of the copyright in a work or other subjectmatter; and

                                          (c) the infringement or infringements have a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright and the person is negligent as to that fact; and

                                          (d) the infringement or infringements occur on a commercial scale and the person is negligent as to that fact.

Penalty: 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.

There is absolutely no reason to extradite him except for political convenience or expediency, which should NEVER be a basis for depriving someone so severely of their status as a citizen. As Justice Young noted, we should beware allowing (and effecting) foreign prosecutions where the conduct is almost entirely referential to Australia.

If equivalent offences were not in existence in Australia, then perhaps I might be more willing to accept it (although even then I would have drastic reservations). As it stands, I cannot accept this.

Nice Precedent?

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:Why is this news?

Perhaps the fact that he isn't under US jurisdiction?

He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

Why is this news?

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.

Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

Flamebait or not, the parent is right. Our government has gone overboard with things like this in the recent past. I just hope that the pendulum swings back sooner rather than later. Too bad I used up all my mod points earlier today.

Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

This may be shameful, but it most certainly doesn't deserve a "Flamebait" mod.

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:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

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?

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:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

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.

Yes, Howard sure has. Now here's the thing... we (by which I mean Australia) have an election this year. We now have the chance to change things! Don't like Howard (hell, I sure don't)? Then vote him out. Vote green. Vote Democrat. Vote independent. Vote for a member with some backbone. Vote for someone who isn't beholden to the libs and the pseudo-libs (labour), someone who can hold the balance of power and force some accoutability for a change. Vote on the issues, not on ill-defined fear and hip pocket jitters. But most importantly... think about how you vote. Get informed. Do some research. Buck the trend, don't just blindly follow your fears and prejudices. Just for once, make an informed, considered decision about what sort of future you want.

Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

So stripping away habeus corpus, holding people indefinitely, Torture Lite (and outsourcing torture as well) is OK as long as it's less evil than what the other guys do? Sorry, I don't think so. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

Point made?

If your point is, "It's ok because other people did worse things," then yes, you got your point across.

Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

If someone kills another person they shouldn't be able to be untouchable by crossing some imaginary barrier; the US doesn't "own" Australia, what does that even mean? We sell a lot of minerals to the US and the Australian government taxes the trade. That's not exactly being "owned", is it? Our economy is also very independent of the US; we have huge mineral deposits and we sell to everyone. How are we "owned" again?

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:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

See, I almost agree with you. However, your imaginary murderer would only be able to be extradited to the States if he committed the murder on US soil. If he murdered someone in Australia, he would be tried in Australia under Australian law. If a 16 year old from the US goes to Germany, and drinks, then when he returns to the US, he isn't charged with anything because he didn't break US law on US soil. The problem is, this guy didn't break any US copyright law in the US; he broke US copyright law in Australia. If this guy can be extradited for breaking US law in his own country (regardless of whether there are similar laws in his country or not) then theoretically we could demand extradition of anyone who has broken any US law anywhere in the world, including all the 16 year olds in Germany who drink. Basically, the whole problem in this case is that US law is being used as International Law. The people talking about representation have a valid point here; IF US law is to be elevated to the status of international law, than those nations should have representation within our government.

Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

Thing is, in this case, the guy being charged didn't cross any oceans. He stayed in one place. This is as if you stole a piece of bread in New York City, and then suddenly found yourself arrested by the LAPD, and whisked off to stand trial in LA (only worse, because at least NYC and LA are both in the US). It is a matter not of whether or not the man should be punished, but where he should be punished and whose laws he should be punished under. He is an Australian. He stood on Australian soil and broke Australian laws. He was never under US jurisdiction at all until we picked him up and brought him here without any justification. He should be charged. If convicted, he should be punished. IN AUSTRALIA!

Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

Welcome to the new world order, Bush (Sr., Jr.) and Clinton style.

This has nothing to do with Clinton or either of the Bushes. The USA has been trying to assert it's laws over other countries for a very, very long time. Take any number of attempts by the USA to tell Canadian companies that they can't have business dealings with Cuba, just because they happen to be owned by American companies. Other examples would be the (attempted) enforcement of American policies regarding exportation of goods to certain countries, etc.

This "New World Order" goes back at LEAST 60 years .... and without having done any research on the topic, I'm willing to bet I could find examples going much farther back.

I will say, however, that this is the first time I've heard of anything involving extradition for violating US law when the person involved has never set foot in the US, and the crimes never took place on US soil.

Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

And if you write something that breaks China's laws should your country extradite you to China? Or how about Suadi Arabia or even Iran? If the idea is good for the US it is equally good for the rest of the world...

Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

So if you send, say a cartoon picture of Mohammad, to someone who happens to be in Iran when they view the email. You should be extradited to Iran to face charges of insulting Islam since your action was a crime under Iranian law, and did harm to individuals that are protected by Iranian law?

Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

Truth hurts.

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00. html [guardian.co.uk]

Hope is very pleasant and all but once a nation starts down a road it can be hard to reverse course. Things can get _much_ worse. Empire is incompatible with democracy.
 

Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

You had a good angle going, but you blew it at the end.

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:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

US laws -- and constitutional rights -- apply to US citizens.

Wrong. Well, not wrong as a statement, but too limited in scope. The U.S. Constitution doesn't create the rights it talks about, it specifically excludes the U.S. government from infringing on them, and not just for U.S. citizens, but for everybody. The Bill of Rights is a set of Limitations on the government power, not an instantiation of Rights. Those rights already exist. The underlying assumption, as expressed in Declaration of Independence and other works, is that those rights are inherent to each and every human being, and that governments are only just and legitimate when they respect those rights. It never refers to "citizens," but always to "people." Thus, the protections in the Constitution apply to everyone the U.S. government interacts with. To argue otherwise, that Constitutional protections apply only to Citizens, destroys the whole idea of democracy by creating the ruling class and allows for fun things like slavery -- "of course slavery is legal, the Constitution applies only to citizens and the slaves aren't!"

Unfortunately, our current government has decided that it is not in fact a limited government and has repeatedly ignored the Constitution. Even the courts have noted this. Hopefully, hopefully we will be able to steer things back on course before it's too late. But that hope strikes me as dim, given the fact that Congress, for instance, has so much it can impeach the president for -- Gitmo, Warrantless searches, authorizing torture, denying habeus corpus, etc -- but has done nothing.

--sabre86

Re:Why is this news?

Perhaps the fact that he isn't under US jurisdiction?

He ran an organization which operated in the US. This is no different than drug lords in Columbia being wanted by US authorities. It's also the same as legitimate companies being liable for what their company does in every country they operate.

Re:Why is this news?

Well the US is not the World Police. He also broke Australian law, and the crime was committed on Australian soil, so should have been charged and tried there. A sovereign country's citizens should be tried under that country's law, unless the US fancies an international court to handle international crimes.

Re:Why is this news?

A sovereign country's citizens should be tried under that country's law, unless the US fancies an international court to handle international crimes.

They do.

Just so long as it doesn't involve US citizens. Or military personnel.

Re:Why is this news?

Remember that "The USA" is not really equivalent to the US nation and its people. The foreign and domestic politics of "The USA" are designed to maximize the wealth of a few dozen families that controls Congress and most big business in the US. At the expense of millions of Americans that has to do with living on minimum wage. The USA as the World Police is a construction created to serve these families interests, not the American people. The American people are just as much the victim of it as everyone else.

Re:Why is this news?

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:Why is this news?

And assuming you're American, would you want someone to be able to blatantly flaunt our laws and cause harm to Americans and American interests simply because they aren't on our soil? Extradition treaties exist for this very purpose.

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?

And assuming you're American, would you want someone to be able to blatantly flaunt our laws and cause harm to Americans and American interests simply because they aren't on our soil?

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.

Re:Why is this news?

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:Why is this news?

Actually, the crime committed was under the Council of Europe Cybercrime treaty, and one of the provisions is extradition. It merely makes sense in our networked world to have treaties that allow for extrajudicial criminal invesitgations. Otherwise, criminals would sit in a country with the most lax laws, and conduct obviously criminal activities against other nations, whose hands would be tied. With regard to hate speech, that was placed in a seperate treaty so that the US would not have to sign it, or more accurately, so the US could sign the other provisions of the treaty. As hate crime legislation is against the 1st Amendment in the US, even if the Senate ratified the treaty, the Supreme Court would hold it invalid. So, that is why there is a difference.

Re:If I was stealing AUS shit, yes, I'd expect to

One point to make - /. moderators are from US mainly, and therefore moderation most likely will favor US citizens and opinions (aka it is BIASED).

Here we go again... Just because slashdot is an American (yeah, we stole that from the two hemispheres, too) -based site and most users are from here, you would complain that views of commenters and moderators expose that statistical reality and call it bias, but I would point out that the citizens of the United States hold as varied a spectrum of beliefs as a semi-homogeneous sampling from elsewhere. If you simply note our last two Presidential elections, you'll see that we are as polarized as it gets...

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:Why is this news?

Typically, countries will assert jurisdiction over acts committed within their geographic territory or acts committed by their own citizens wherever they may be. Sometimes a country will assert that a foreign national--though not actually setting foot in the country--has reached out to its jurisdiction by some act, thus invoking "the long arm of the law." Examples would include sending a mail bomb, or breaking into a computer over the internet.

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:Why is this news?

You'll be hearing shortly from the government of Nigeria. Your comments about their citizens were deemed to be illegal under Nigerian legal code Section 13.43b and you will be extradited to face criminal charges there.

Have a nice day.

Re:Listen...

That's not the drum of revolution, it's the contented monotony of suburban life.

Huh?

Most countries have extradition treaties, meaning they've specifically agreed to send citizens to foreign countries to face prosecution if a formal request is made. You actually want it this way. Wouldn't be much fun if criminals could commit crimes with impunity just because they weren't physically in a country. Now I'm not saying software piracy should be one of those crimes, but let's be real here. What if there was an organized crime boss, living in the US, ordering the deaths of Australian citizens? Would you want the US to extradite him to face justice or would you want them to say "Well he wasn't committing any crimes here, and since he's not in Australia you can't have him, sorry."

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:Huh?

Except in your example the crime boss is committing a crime under US law on US soil. I don't believe the law differentiates who is being killed in that case. I honestly can't think of any reason why someone should be extradited in this way. If you are doing something which is legal in your home country, should another country be able to extradite you? No. It's not illegal. If you're doing something that is illegal in your home country, should another country be able to extradite you? No. You should be charged under the laws of your own country.

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:Huh?

It would be like the US trying to extradite someone from Amsterdam for smoking pot.

The Netherlands does actually get dozens of US extradition requests a year for drugs related crimes, and regularly does extradite Dutch citizens for engaging in drugs transactions with Americans and in some cases even with DEA agents operating on Dutch soil. It's a major political issue here, but the major (conservative) government coalition parties apparently basically tolerate this kind of activity because it creates a possibility to use forms of entrapment that would otherwise be illegal here, and it is easier to get people in jail in the US, particularly through plea bargaining, which is also illegal here. Just smoking pot is safe, though.

Re:Sad

I don't know much about Australian internal politics, but in the overall picture I think you are right: the Australian government is at fault here. Why give him up?

Now, the guy violated copyright law - Australian copyright law, as mentioned in TFA,

[Griffiths] indicated that he would be willing to plead guilty to a breach of Australian copyright law

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:Sad

"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."

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.