Julian Assange in custody.

[White_Unifier]

Because our government sold us out decades ago. Can't remember the name at the moment (Larson?)but there is a guy in Vancouver was selling pot seeds over the net and was given up to the US by our government because the seeds were being bought in the US.

It should be based on the physical location of the person committing the offence, not on the location where the offence is committed. If he was physically in Canada while selling the seeds online, then only Canadian law should apply to him.

I'd apply the same principle in reverse. If a person sitting at his computer in NYC robs a bank in Canada, I'd say he broke US law and not Canadian law. The Canadian authorities could cooperate with the US to provide them with all the information we have available to help the US authorities prosecute him under US law. But if he'd never set foot on Canadian soil, then it baffles my mind how he could break Canadian law without being physically present in Canada.

I'd apply the same to a person standing on the US side of the border with his rifle, pointing at someone on the Canadian side, and pulling the trigger to assassinate him. While it would make perfect sense for Canada to cooperate in the investigation, I don't see how he would have violated Canadian law. It would seem to make sense that he should be tried under the laws of the jurisdiction in which he was physically present at the time of the offence.

 

[taxslave]

It should be based on the physical location of the person committing the offence, not on the location where the offence is committed. If he was physically in Canada while selling the seeds online, then only Canadian law should apply to him.
I'd apply the same principle in reverse. If a person sitting at his computer in NYC robs a bank in Canada, I'd say he broke US law and not Canadian law. The Canadian authorities could cooperate with the US to provide them with all the information we have available to help the US authorities prosecute him under US law. But if he'd never set foot on Canadian soil, then it baffles my mind how he could break Canadian law without being physically present in Canada.
I'd apply the same to a person standing on the US side of the border with his rifle, pointing at someone on the Canadian side, and pulling the trigger to assassinate him. While it would make perfect sense for Canada to cooperate in the investigation, I don't see how he would have violated Canadian law. It would seem to make sense that he should be tried under the laws of the jurisdiction in which he was physically present at the time of the offence.

Should be and reality often don't align.

 

[taxslave]

Dana Larson. Vancouver pot advocate. Must be about 5 years ago now.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Dana Larson. Vancouver pot advocate. Must be about 5 years ago now.

No amnesty for him .... no-no-no. Does that mean that you pot users are subject to arrest in the U.S. just because you legally smoke it in Canada but they only recognise their law?

 

[petros]

If a person sitting at his computer in NYC robs a bank in Canada, I'd say he broke US law and not Canadian law.

He broke laws in both countries.

 

[Curious Cdn]

He broke laws in both countries.

If the crime were committed in Canada involving a victim in the USA, the Americans would DEMAND the criminal's extradition. If the crime were committed in the US against a Canadian, would the Americans extradite him up here?

I bet not. The American law enforcement and judicial people may not even consider Canadian law to be legitimate. You'll be dealing with a lot of jerkwater hicks, most likely not exactly their greatest judicial minds.

 

[Hoid]

If the crime is committed in America they would have the trial there regardless of who the victim was.

 

[Curious Cdn]

If the crime is committed in America they would have the trial there regardless of who the victim was.

If that were true, tens of thousands of Americans would be guilty of murdering foreigners by various means. How many drone pilots have been tried for killing innocent civilians?

They are exceptional.

 

[White_Unifier]

If the crime were committed in Canada involving a victim in the USA, the Americans would DEMAND the criminal's extradition. If the crime were committed in the US against a Canadian, would the Americans extradite him up here?
I bet not. The American law enforcement and judicial people may not even consider Canadian law to be legitimate. You'll be dealing with a lot of jerkwater hicks, most likely not exactly their greatest judicial minds.

I actually find it worrisome. A US citizen in Canada who decides to visit Cuba should not be subject to US laws. South Korea has something similar: a Korean citizen who consumes marijuana in Canada can be tried in South Korea. I think Lebanon has a similar law: a Lebanese can be tried in Lebanon for an act committed in Canada.

Imagine if I'm a Canadian citizen in the US doing business with a country that the US allows me to trade with but that Canada doesn't. I'd be enraged to learn on arriving in Canada that Canada would then apply its laws to my actions in the US. Extraterritorial laws make it difficult to know what laws apply to me. To keep it simple, the rule should be that the only laws that apply to me are the ones of the jurisdiction in which I'm in at the time that I commit an action.

I think it foolish to pay for sex. But hypothetically, if I fly to Amsterdam and pay for sex, however foolish it might be (and however much I agree with the French model of making paying for sex an offence punishable by a fine that doubles for any repetition of the offence), I still would oppose on principle that Canadian authorities should arrest me on my return and try me for paying for sex in Amsterdam because it's illegal in Canada. I'd extend this principle even to child sexual abuse. It's the principle of respecting jurisdictional boundaries. I'd have no problem with extraditing a child molester back to the country in which the alleged molestation occurred. But if he allegedly committed the act abroad, then he didn't break any Canadian law however much he may have violated another country's.

 

[Hoid]

If that were true, tens of thousands of Americans would be guilty of murdering foreigners by various means. How many drone pilots have been tried for killing innocent civilians?

They are exceptional.

I was talking about an American killing a Canadian in America. He wouldn't be sent to Canada to stand trial.

 

[Curious Cdn]

I was talking about an American killing a Canadian in America. He wouldn't be sent to Canada to stand trial.

Of course not.

 

[Cliffy]

 

[Hoid]

I have a hard time seeing Assange as a journalist protecting a source or anything like that.

He's a guy who actively steals and publishes things meant to hurt specific people.

It would be one thing if he released all of Trumps emails at the same time he did Hillary's, but what he did unleveled the playing field and was a major reason we are stuck with President Fruit Loop

 

[Walter]

Sounds like Turdoh and Wilson-Raybould.

 

[Cliffy]

 

[Danbones]

He is not, like you are, a trump hater, cliffy.

I notice also, Assange never talks in memes.

 

[taxslave]

No amnesty for him .... no-no-no. Does that mean that you pot users are subject to arrest in the U.S. just because you legally smoke it in Canada but they only recognise their law?

Probably. But ask us if we care.

 

[taxslave]

I actually find it worrisome. A US citizen in Canada who decides to visit Cuba should not be subject to US laws. South Korea has something similar: a Korean citizen who consumes marijuana in Canada can be tried in South Korea. I think Lebanon has a similar law: a Lebanese can be tried in Lebanon for an act committed in Canada.
Imagine if I'm a Canadian citizen in the US doing business with a country that the US allows me to trade with but that Canada doesn't. I'd be enraged to learn on arriving in Canada that Canada would then apply its laws to my actions in the US. Extraterritorial laws make it difficult to know what laws apply to me. To keep it simple, the rule should be that the only laws that apply to me are the ones of the jurisdiction in which I'm in at the time that I commit an action.
I think it foolish to pay for sex. But hypothetically, if I fly to Amsterdam and pay for sex, however foolish it might be (and however much I agree with the French model of making paying for sex an offence punishable by a fine that doubles for any repetition of the offence), I still would oppose on principle that Canadian authorities should arrest me on my return and try me for paying for sex in Amsterdam because it's illegal in Canada. I'd extend this principle even to child sexual abuse. It's the principle of respecting jurisdictional boundaries. I'd have no problem with extraditing a child molester back to the country in which the alleged molestation occurred. But if he allegedly committed the act abroad, then he didn't break any Canadian law however much he may have violated another country's.

You can be tried in Canada for kid diddling in Thiland.

 

[taxslave]

I have a hard time seeing Assange as a journalist protecting a source or anything like that.
He's a guy who actively steals and publishes things meant to hurt specific people.
It would be one thing if he released all of Trumps emails at the same time he did Hillary's, but what he did unleveled the playing field and was a major reason we are stuck with President Fruit Loop

Better than being stuck with another criminal clinton.

 

[Hoid]

ya who needs Clinton