US Law now enforcable in Canada?

[Tgace]

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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

Didn't you read my campaign platform?

 

[Tgace]

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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.

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

 

[shesulsa]

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

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

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

 

[Andrew Green]

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

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

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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

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

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

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

 

[shesulsa]

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

... but if we must ...

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

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

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

 

[Tgace]

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tgace]

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

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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

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

 

[Tgace]

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

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

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

 

[modarnis]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[modarnis]

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

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

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

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

 

[Flatlander]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tgace]

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

 

[Andrew Green]

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

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

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

 

[modarnis]

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

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

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

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

 

[Andrew Green]

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

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

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

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

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

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