Due process in regard to which laws. I presumably would be a violation of Danish law, but under American law it isn't. It's more of an insult to Denmark than anything else. Which is why it's not typically done.
But if the CIA just dragged him back to America and turned him over to the US Marshals it wouldn't impact his charges.
It scares me that it's becomming applicable where ever they want it to be.
Soon we'll have to arrest everyone for drinking alcohol, because that's against laws in some countries, we'll have to arrest all women for driving, because that's against the law elsewhere, etc. etc.
> The american law is not applicable in non US territories.
This is inaccurate in a number of ways. Certain American laws are, on their face, restricted in territorial applicability (others are explicitly not, others are neither explicitly limited nor explicitly unlimited and the application requires reference to principles beyond the individual law in question), and, particularly, certain protections of the Constitution have been held unenforceable against the government in the context of certain actions outside the territory of the United States.
But you can't correctly make a blanket statement that US law is not applicable outside of US territory.
US National laws are restricted to US Nationals, and the territory of the USA. Now, for laws that could apply outside of these boundaries, you are partially right, but these are covered by treaties, agreements, cooperation efforts, decrees and stuff like that between the USA and its friends.
> US National laws are restricted to US Nationals, and the territory of the USA.
No, they aren't (unless you are using "US National laws" as a label you've made up for laws that are restricted to US Nationals and the territory of the US.)
Extradition is based on treaties/agreements between countries, and they go both ways to make sure criminals cannot escape just by crossing borders. As for Kim Dotcom, his actions may fall under US jurisdiction as some of its customers and servers were in the USA, and whatever he was potentially infringing (copyright among others?) is protected and recognized by international treaties.
For online businesses it's a lot more risky as your customers and operations may be located anywhere.
Generally actions done to your citizens abroad will cause less retribution than actions done to host nation citizens in host nation. Even better if there is any level of plausible (or even implausible) deniability.
Russia pretty much got away with murdering Litvinenko in London; if they'd done that to a natural-born UK citizen in the UK with no other ties to Russia, and unambiguously, there would have been much more serious consequences.
Russia pretty much got away with murdering Litvinenko in London
Well, up until now. It was so clearly a political decision to ignore it when it happened and now that relations with Russia have deteriorated it's been investigated and the obvious conclusion reached.
The CIA could have someone with 'CIA' on their jacket shoot a UK citizen on the street in broad daylight and the UK would avoid investigating it if it was politically inconvenient to do so.
Wasn't a UK citizen illegally rendered, detained at Guantanamo and released after many years without being charged? I haven't heard of any enquiries/investigation s into that episode by the government across the pond.
>> I haven't heard of any enquiries/investigation s into that episode by the government across the pond.
I'm referring to Her Majesty's government: Italy isn't the US's poodle the way the UK is, the thread was discussing the non-action of the UK government due to political inconvenience
>I'm referring to Her Majesty's government: Italy isn't the US's poodle the way the UK is, the thread was discussing the non-action of the UK government due to political inconvenience
I get that, but figured it would still be worth noting that other EU states have previously done this.
But if the CIA just dragged him back to America and turned him over to the US Marshals it wouldn't impact his charges.
There is no recognized right to be a fugitive.