[LINK] Aussie Drink or Die member handed to US on a plate

[Rick Welykochy]

Alastair Rankine wrote:

> On 11/05/2007, at 8:33 PM, grove at zeta.org.au wrote:
> 
>> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/05/06/1178390140855.html
>>
>> This is absolutely disgraceful.    No matter what this man did, he
>> did it under Australian law, as an Australian citizen, in his home land.
>> He should be tried as an Australian, by the Australian system.
> 
> This assumes that his actions were covered by only one jurisdiction. 
> Surely in the case of intellectual property law it is possible to 
> violate in many jurisdictions at once?

And thus he should be tried here, since he broke Australian Copyright
Law. IANAL, but I assume that copyright in Australia protects international
copyright holders, perhaps only of those countries in bilateral
agreement with this country.

> I'm just asking that if he has violated US law, and we hold him, why 
> *shouldn't* he be extradited?
> 
> Is the fact that he is to be charged for intellectual property law 
> relevant? If so, why? What makes IP law so special as to be excluded 
> from extradition?

The same reason many crimes are not grounds for extradition. It is the
seriousness of a crime that invokes extradition orders. Once again IANAL,
but it seems that in this case, the extradition system appears to be
an extreme way to deal with a crime committed in Australia that can be dealt
with locally.

Here is a quote from the Wikipedia article regarding this topic:

   This is an unusual situation as the US extradition has not targeted a
   fugitive or a dangerous person who financially profited from his activities.
   However, the Australian courts and executive government have agreed to
   treat Griffiths' activities as having taken place in US jurisdiction.
   The case therefore highlights the serious consequences for Australian
   internet users who are charged with pirating US copyright-protected
   material.

It is one thing to commit a serious crime in the USA and flee to another
country. Extradition is appropriate in that circumstance. But it is quite
another to commit a crime in Australia and be extradited to another
jurisdiction without having committed the crime in that jurisdiction.

The fact that the Australian courts and the executive have decided that
Griffith's actions took place under USA jurisdiction does not make that
decision morally or legally correct.

This decision sets a serious precedent that can be used in the future for
even more questionable draconian measures. Imagine this country extraditing
a citizen to another jurisdiction that would torture or execute the
defendant. Imagine the process being used for political purposes.

cheers
rickw

-- 
_________________________________
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services

The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
      -- Galileo