US Law now enforcable in Canada?

[Bob Hubbard]

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I see this issue as the Canadian cops were looking the otherway, waiting on the law to be repealed.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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Each side is abiding by a mutualy agreed upon treaty.

Bottom line.

 

[Andrew Green]

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]

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

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

 

[arnisador]

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]

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!!!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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.