Abu's trial.. since when does US jurisidiction extend outside the

[shortlived]

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/world/2013/03/09/1974417/

Very problematic in my opinion that the US is trying a foreigner in US civil court for a crime that would have been committed outside the US.

I find this entire principle problematic. The issue is that lots of americans call for Iran to be bombed, this would mean that if equivolent people calling on acts of war against a country could be tried in civil court.

Anyone supporting war against another country would be a felon?

I find this principle problematic at best.

Also it seems to be in violation of the constitution of the united states for freedom of expression.

Americans have many times called on people to be killed, are all those americans going to be tried on utter death threats or conspiracy to commit murder?

The charge is utter nonsense, it didn't even happen in the US.

I totally reject the whole premise of US civil court jurisidiction extending beyond the US to try foreign citizens in the United States...

utter BS.

This is just part of the bag of us interventionism that deserves people to scream down with america!

He commited no crime in the US us F off. Charging him with war crimes is an entirely different matter that could be handled at the Hague through the world court and UN aparatus. American has no f-ing jurisidiciton to try foreigners for acts commited on foreign soil.

This is a corruption of the principle of sovereignty.

Its just a mockery of justice and kangaroo court , which is a shame as it tarnishes the US justice system even further.

I'm sure Iran abducting John McCain and others and putting them on trial for conspiracy to kill Iranians is all good

Or Hezbollah or other arab countries abudcting Israeli's for conspiring to kill them..

The charge is a sham due to the game it opens up.

Foreign citizens cannot be arrested by a foreign state for things that are not crimes in the juridiction they are in and do not extend to other jurisdictions.

Idiots in America who make laws that violate foreign soveriegnty like that deserve to be killed, who is with me

Osama bin Laden's son has absolutely no chance of a fair trial in the US.

Edited March 9, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

Would you have preferred a direct drone strike in Jordan instead ? This perp was stripped of his Kuwaiti citizenship years ago, and was deported to Jordan. Looks like he waived his "extradition rights". LOL!

Foreign citizens get arrested and extradited to the U.S. for trial all the time. Just ask the Canadian Prince of Pot, who is still doing time in a Georgia prison.

Don't like it ? Write your congressman/woman.

[shortlived]

Would you have preferred a direct drone strike in Jordan instead ? This perp was stripped of his Kuwaiti citizenship years ago, and was deported to Jordan. Looks like he waived his "extradition rights". LOL!

Foreign citizens get arrested and extradited to the U.S. for trial all the time. Just ask the Canadian Prince of Pot, who is still doing time in a Georgia prison.

Don't like it ? Write your congressman/woman.

Poison in his drink at the hotel... disapeared on route to jordan I don't know.

It is just a circus

clearly a violation of the sixth ammendment

America hasn't installed any up here yet.

Its things like this that make me feel the shadow the Reich.

Prince of pot physically exported seeds to the US, which well is sorta a crime, but it was a bs crime. Your states are legalizing the stuff. Pot prohibition is nonsense anyway, it just fuels the criminal underworld.

The events such as abduction during an extradition to kuwait without a formal extradition request is just a flagrant violation of international law.

Edited March 9, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Its things like this that make me feel the shadow the Reich.

So what? Japanese Canadians experienced the "Reich" right at home.

...The events such as abduction during an extradition to kuwait without a formal extradition request is just a flagrant violation of international law.

The U.S. is international law....LOL! Think it ain't ?

[GostHacked]

So here is how you can look at it.

Anwar Al-Awlaki was a US citizen. But was a leader for Al-Queda and was killed by a drone strike in Yemen. No charges, no trial, no sentencing.

This son of Bin-Laden is NOT a US citizen and gets a trial in a US court.

Something does not seem right here.

[Pliny]

So here is how you can look at it.

Anwar Al-Awlaki was a US citizen. But was a leader for Al-Queda and was killed by a drone strike in Yemen. No charges, no trial, no sentencing.

This son of Bin-Laden is NOT a US citizen and gets a trial in a US court.

Something does not seem right here.

Yep. What precedent are they trying to set here?

Attorney General Holder and Obama seem intent on trying these terrorists in civilian courts. They bowed to pressure not to have prisoners at Gitmo tried in New York. Now they pull this stunt???

[GostHacked]

Yep. What precedent are they trying to set here?

Attorney General Holder and Obama seem intent on trying these terrorists in civilian courts. They bowed to pressure not to have prisoners at Gitmo tried in New York. Now they pull this stunt???

They know what they are doing and this was on purpose. Whoever is pulling this stunt want to rub it in the face of Americans. Like throwing acid on the wound.

But this is the kind of thing that happens often with the US government. They say one thing, do another regardless of one's protests.

[shortlived]

The U.S. is international law....LOL! Think it ain't ?

I disagree, comments like that just earn you A-hole factor.

[bush_cheney2004]

I disagree, comments like that just earn you A-hole factor.

I work hard for that, presenting the economic and geo-political realities of our day. Please come back and buy more GBUs (bombs) whenever you need them.

[Guest American Woman]

Osama bin Laden's son has absolutely no chance of a fair trial in the US.

That's simply your opinion, but I'm wondering what it has to do with "Canada/United States relations"...and fyi, he's not "bin Laden's son."

[GostHacked]

That's simply your opinion, but I'm wondering what it has to do with "Canada/United States relations"...and fyi, he's not "bin Laden's son."

Any opinion on American citizens getting a drone strike and non-american citizens gets a trial in NYC?

[Guest American Woman]

Any opinion on American citizens getting a drone strike and non-american citizens gets a trial in NYC?

I'm not sure what you're asking - non-citizens get trials in foreign countries all the time. As for American citizens getting a drone strike - you lost me there.

[GostHacked]

I'm not sure what you're asking - non-citizens get trials in foreign countries all the time. As for American citizens getting a drone strike - you lost me there.

No problem, but please don't be telling this Canadian that he does not know anything about the USA.

Actually I have already made that post. #5 in this thread to be exact.

[Guest American Woman]

No problem, but please don't be telling this Canadian that he does not know anything about the USA.

???

Actually I have already made that post. #5 in this thread to be exact.

As I already said, you lost me - I have no idea what you are asking/what point you are trying to make with your question.

[Pliny]

That's simply your opinion, but I'm wondering what it has to do with "Canada/United States relations"...and fyi, he's not "bin Laden's son."

Don't know why it is here on Canada/US relations?

[GostHacked]

As I already said, you lost me - I have no idea what you are asking/what point you are trying to make with your question.

Sure this whole thread is in the wrong section, but you don't seem it as a bit odd that Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son were both American citizens, killed in Yemen by the US government with a drone strike. As an American he would be granted a trial in the USA. This Bin Laden son in law is NOT an American citizen and gets hijacked from Jordan and brought to NYC and put on trial.

Why not send him to gitmo? As an American Citizen Al-Alawki should have been granted a trial in the USA. Al-Awlaki dined with Pentagon officials before 9/11 and was part of Al-Qeuda, this son in law of Bin Laden is also of Al-Queda.

American justice seems to work in your favour if you are not an American.

[shortlived]

I'm not sure what you're asking - non-citizens get trials in foreign countries all the time. As for American citizens getting a drone strike - you lost me there.

Not when they have never been in the foreign country or had ties in the foreign country. Fact is no crime was committed within US jurisdiction so he shouldn't be tried in US courts.

You can't try someone for shoplifting in another country.

One of the few exceptions is jurisdiction extending to your own citizens who commit crimes in foreign countries, but no there is no jurisdiction to try foreign citizens in their own countries for things they do in their own countries.

Fact is US didn't declare any war, so the rules of war don't apply.

The US in fact hasn't declared war since WWII and all its military actions have been in violation of international law since that point.

(with the exception potentially being those actions mandated by the UN security council resolutions)

The US effectively abducted the guy, which in itself is criminal.

What it represents is both corrupt conduct by the US and Jordan.

Last December, an American official said, a U.S. judge issued a warrant for Abu Ghaith's arrest for conspiring to kill Americans. Interpol, the international police agency, then issued a "Red Notice" for Abu Ghaith, the equivalent of an international arrest warrant, the official said.

This is currious "these crimes", making videos denouncing the US, were commited well beyond the US statutory limitations period.

This is well beyond the 3-7 years statute of limitations if these "crimes" were said to occur in 2001. It is well well beyond the prosecution period.

Did the law even exist in 2001?

I find it ludicrist in a country where freedom of speech is suppose to exist they can't arrest somemone 10 years after the fact for making a video in a foreign country saying, that because america is bombing afghanistan Americans should avoid highrise buildings.

It is pure BS, and not proportional, I would argue not in anyway criminal. He did not at any time indicate he would be involved in any attacks. The videos were clearly him just expressing hate and contempt for the US, something entirely legal for people of foreign countries to do.

Much like americans express hate and contempt for countries such as Syria and Iran.

The indisciriminate abduction of Americans who have said bad things about syria and iran to those countries to face charges is just ludicrist and AMericans have no expectation of equal treatment of the law for the same act.

So it is a bs charge.

I applaud Turkey for refusing the extradition.

Hurriyet, a Turkish newspaper, said the United States asked Turkey to extradite Abu Ghaith after he was detained in Ankara in early February. The newspaper, whose account was not confirmed by U.S. officials, said he was held for 33 days after being arrested by the Turks at a luxury hotel, but later released after a Turkish court ruled he had not committed a crime in Turkey.

When is the US going to arrest its own citizens for commiting this exact same 'crime' in relation to its own citizens and politicans in relation to foreign countries and foreign citizens?

You have the US even saying it will commit terrorist acts against its own citizens in foreign countries.

There is no standards of ethics in performance of their witch hunt. Which if applied to its own citizens in relation to foreign countries would be considered "free speech"

All the Americans have is a bunch of hearsay and communications which fall within free speech.

This is just an instance of guilty by association, and a fraud of the American criminal justice system

"There are thousands of the Islamic nation's youths who are eager to die just as the Americans are eager to live"

No sh1t sherlock now where is the crime?

The guy didn't say he was going to fly a plane into a skyscrapper nor did he say that he was going to get someone to. He just said that someones is going to fly a plane into a skyscrapper.

There is a difference between opinion and criminality.

Criticism and opinion based communication is part of what makes free speech free. You just don't like what he had to say because it was an act of defiance against the US. Not a crime.

The guy earned prophet points with

"He said the US and Britain, by attacking Afghanistan, had opened a door that would never be closed."

what is it 12 years later now?

One should realize that in 2001 the afghanistan invasion was an illegal war, which at the time was not sanctioned by the UN.

Edited March 14, 2013 by shortlived