Survivalist Forum banner
  • Are you passionate about survivalism? Would you like to write about topics that interest you and get paid for it? Read all about it here!
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,150 Posts
fortunately we as a nation do not have to surrender them... that is against the law... and to hell with the Italians anyways...
 

·
Retrofitted Sheeple
Joined
·
30,149 Posts
fortunately we as a nation do not have to surrender them... that is against the law... and to hell with the Italians anyways...
While I agree we don't have to surrender them, I question the idea that we have a monopoly on justice or that the sovereignty and laws of other nations don't matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,150 Posts
While I agree we don't have to surrender them, I question the idea that we have a monopoly on justice or that the sovereignty and laws of other nations don't matter.


The united states is not required under the constitution to comply with international law and to enforce such a thing is ground of treason.... and the other nations laws simply do not hold water under constitutional law...
 

·
Retrofitted Sheeple
Joined
·
30,149 Posts
The united states is not required under the constitution to comply with international law and to enforce such a thing is ground of treason.... and the other nations laws simply do not hold water under constitutional law...
The most recent US-italy extradition treaty: http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/26/25/00051223.pdf

The US Constitution Article VI:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Have a great day. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,150 Posts
The most recent US-italy extradition treaty: http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/26/25/00051223.pdf

The US Constitution Article VI:



Have a great day. :)

that is true... however: it does not pertain to this issue and under that treaty it does not include foreign agents opertain under US aspices...

Normally, extradition may be sought only for an extraditable offense (that is, an offense included in an extradition treaty between the requesting state and surrendering state). See generally: Spatola v. United States, 925 F.2d 615, 619 (2d.Cir.1991) and Melia v. United States, 667 F.2d 300, 304 (2d Cir.1981). The determination of whether an offense is extraditable can be made in two possible ways. The most stringent method requires that the offense charged be identical to an offense listed in the extradition treaty. Alternatively, a nation can require that the acts contributing to the charge could sustain some other charge listed in the treaty under the laws of the surrendering nation, obviating the need for an identical treaty offense (see discussion of dual criminality, below). United States v. Medina, 985 F.Supp. 397 (S.D.N.Y., 1997); see also: In re Dubroca Y Paniagua, 33 F.2d 181 (D.C.Pa. 1929) (upholding extradition for seduction, a crime in both countries); see generally: Spatola, 925 F.2d at 619. In Medina, defendant Francisco Medina moved to dismiss his charges on the grounds that they were not covered under the extradition treaty between the United States and the Dominican Republic. Citing Johnson v. Browne (205 U.S. 309 at 316, 1907), the court further held that a foreign government's decision to extradite an individual in response to a request from the United States is not subject to review by United States courts. In Johnson, defendant Addison Johnson was captured in Canada, and indicted for conspiring to defraud the United States, and for importing Japanese silks without paying the full legal duty required. However, only the first offense fell within Canada's extradition treaty. As a result, the court found that Johnson could only be held for the extraditable offense. One court even went as far as to grant an extradited and incarcerated criminal “reasonable time to leave the country before he is arrested upon the charge of any other crime committed previous to his extradition.” United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 424 (1886).


you have a nice day now... :)



self edit here....

Extradition treaties span hundreds of countries at the present time, and this creates a certain amount of complexity. Extradition law as it relates to the United States is particularly complex, since the United States does not fall under a simplifying bilateral regional treaty like many nations in Europe, nor has it ratified the treaty creating the International Criminal Court (ICC).
 

·
Retrofitted Sheeple
Joined
·
30,149 Posts
that is true... however: it does not pertain to this issue and under that treaty it does not include foreign agents opertain under US aspices...

Normally, extradition may be sought only for an extraditable offense (that is, an offense included in an extradition treaty between the requesting state and surrendering state). See generally: Spatola v. United States, 925 F.2d 615, 619 (2d.Cir.1991) and Melia v. United States, 667 F.2d 300, 304 (2d Cir.1981). The determination of whether an offense is extraditable can be made in two possible ways. The most stringent method requires that the offense charged be identical to an offense listed in the extradition treaty. Alternatively, a nation can require that the acts contributing to the charge could sustain some other charge listed in the treaty under the laws of the surrendering nation, obviating the need for an identical treaty offense (see discussion of dual criminality, below). United States v. Medina, 985 F.Supp. 397 (S.D.N.Y., 1997); see also: In re Dubroca Y Paniagua, 33 F.2d 181 (D.C.Pa. 1929) (upholding extradition for seduction, a crime in both countries); see generally: Spatola, 925 F.2d at 619. In Medina, defendant Francisco Medina moved to dismiss his charges on the grounds that they were not covered under the extradition treaty between the United States and the Dominican Republic. Citing Johnson v. Browne (205 U.S. 309 at 316, 1907), the court further held that a foreign government's decision to extradite an individual in response to a request from the United States is not subject to review by United States courts. In Johnson, defendant Addison Johnson was captured in Canada, and indicted for conspiring to defraud the United States, and for importing Japanese silks without paying the full legal duty required. However, only the first offense fell within Canada's extradition treaty. As a result, the court found that Johnson could only be held for the extraditable offense. One court even went as far as to grant an extradited and incarcerated criminal “reasonable time to leave the country before he is arrested upon the charge of any other crime committed previous to his extradition.” United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 424 (1886).


you have a nice day now... :)
Hmm.... I wonder what the comparable crime is when foreign agents kidnap people on US soil...

But this isn't my point and I'm not even saying that the agents OUGHT to be extradited. What I'm saying is that it isn't up to the CIA or the federal government to decide that. It's up to a US court of law to decide if extradition is granted or denied. It's the rule of law and I kinda like the rule of law.
 

·
Christian
Joined
·
39,500 Posts
CIA got away with it, but then again thats what they do huh? Italians are ****ed but they will get over it. This time we were faster and smarter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,150 Posts
Hmm.... I wonder what the comparable crime is when foreign agents kidnap people on US soil...

But this isn't my point and I'm not even saying that the agents OUGHT to be extradited. What I'm saying is that it isn't up to the CIA or the federal government to decide that. It's up to a US court of law to decide if extradition is granted or denied. It's the rule of law and I kinda like the rule of law.

well rule of law covers CIA agents and the constitution supercedes all other law governing agents and diplomats....
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top