New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom

from the not-going-well dept

The US's case against Kim Dotcom and Megaupload continues to run into significant problems. While the US Justice Department (with an assist from New Zealand law enforcement) has continued to insist that extraditing Kim Dotcom halfway around the world to the US was a mere formality, and that the evidence against him need not be shown, the courts in New Zealand have taken a rather different view. They refused to rubberstamp the acquisition as the US hoped. Then, the New Zealand High Court stepped in to review the extradition issue, making a final ruling that says that the FBI needs to reveal its evidence and that the extradition request does not comply with the law as currently written.

In other words, a complete and utter failure by the FBI in this effort.

The full ruling (pdf and embedded below) is quite an interesting read, if you've got the time. Basically, the court agrees with the assertion from the US that an extradition hearing isn't meant to try the full case... but, then points out that this doesn't mean you completely ignore the basic rights of the accused. It is still a criminal case, and as such they have certain basic rights that must be observed -- and which the US was trying to deny to Dotcom. The court considers a variety of case law, including some Canadian extradition cases, and even directly notes that some past cases involved "rubber stamp" approvals of extradition (literally using that term). However, more recent cases have pushed back against that and said that the home court need not try all of the evidence, but should at least look at the evidence to see if it is defective.

The court further notes the fundamental unfairness of the argument made by the US and New Zealand: "severely restrict[ing] the ability of [one party] to file relevant evidence would not easily be characterised as 'fair.'"

The bigger question, then, was whether or not the FBI needed to release its evidence to Dotcom, and again, the Court ruled against the US's position. The Court notes that the law enforcement folks rely on obsolete and outdated caselaw to make their argument, and notes that "I do not find this line of authority particularly persuasive" because they really cover different issues, and (of course) the arguments made appear to be stretched from the original intentions. The judge seems to recognize that the FBI and the Crown are making ridiculous arguments, noting that there is "nothing incompatible" with revealing the evidence in New Zealand and then using it in the US case should extradition be granted.
In my view disclosure should be provided by the requesting state. The Act provides the person sought with a right to challenge whether the threshold for extradition has been met before he will be extradited. Consistent with the requirements of... the Bill of Rights Act to a fair hearing, the person sought should be given access to sufficient information to enable him or her to fully participate in that hearing on an equally informed basis. Without access to materials relevant to the extradition hearing phase, the person sought will be significantly constrained in his or her ability to participate in the hearing and the requesting state will have a significant advantage in terms of access to information.
The order lists out what needs to be disclosed, and it's a pretty long list. Basically "all documents" relating to each of the key charges.

Separately, the judge noted that the "Record of Case" document, which the Crown (with the FBI) used to argue for extradition wasn't up to proper legal standards in that it did not provide the necessary info to support extradition.
She also found the "Record of Case", the document which made the argument for extradition, did not currently meet the legal requirements. She said the FBI was under an "obligation of candour" to provide any evidence which could impact on the court's judgment of whether the extradition threshold had been met - and no information had been provided to support FBI claims. The document "did not comply", she said.
Basically, this is the final ruling on this issue. The New Zealand government and the FBI can't appeal it any higher and now have to actually let Dotcom and his lawyers see the evidence against him. What a concept.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Alana (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 3:34am

    Ah, a sane decision.

    NZ. I'm glad I live here if they're battling the US's.... ...Wait, what's a good word to describe the US's actions in this case? Asshattery? Douchebaggery? Foolhardishness? ...Idiotic?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 3:40am

    Very good.

    that puts to rest some fears i had about the consequences of the removal of the Monarch themselves (usually represented by the privy council) being removed as final court of appeal, too.

    (another major change snuck through and only announced after the fact. mostly because our government got sick of LOSING when cases made it that far. hehe.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 3:41am

    "In other words, a complete and utter failure by the FBI in this effort. "

    I suspect the FBI will just refuse outright, and apply pressure diplomatically to get the NZ courts to wake up and realize their mistake.

    Extradition hearings shouldn't require full disclosure of evidence. It seems like the judges there are grandstadning and going way past the legal requirements. It's almost like, well, someone has been giving them tips.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    saulgoode (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 3:47am

    ...and now have to actually let Dotcom and his lawyers see the evidence against him. What a concept.

    My vote for most insightful comment of the week.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 3:50am

    Re:

    Tinpot dictatorships?

    Oh, wait, that's offensive to actual tinpot dictators.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 3:51am

    Re:

    No, but under NZ AND US law, there is a legal right to face their accuser, including some of the paperwork. This has not been given at any stage during this trial. Not at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Prisoner 201, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 3:53am

    Re:

    "Extradition hearings shouldn't require full disclosure of evidence."

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    There is no need for accused people (or their lawyers) to see evidence against them.

    If there were innocent, they wouldn't be accused, right?

    If I was accused of a crime I would not mind being shipped to another country to face charges without seeing the evidence against me. I am sure I will get to see it at the fair trial I am sure to get.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 3:55am

    Re:

    Foolhardiness, not Foolhardishness. and idiocy, probably. also, stupidity, evil, incompetent greed, corruption...

    i like arsehattery, personally (body part, not donkey. no americanisms for you.). evil AND stupid.

    thing to remember, of course, is that our (NZ) government, or at least those bits under the Prime Minister and National Party's control, are going along with said arsehattery. at least the Courts take the responsibilities of their jobs seriously.

    one branch of three working well is an improvement on most places, it seems.

    now if only the governor would actually do their damn job we could properly disentangle the executive and the legislature and perhaps get them working again.

    (the current arrangement has the exectutive mostly chosen by a combination of cronyism and what amounts to bribery. exactly the situation the restrictions on who can be chosen for those posts was designed to Prevent, but the GG's habit of picking the PM based on who can get majority support in parliament (ie, the leader of the largest coalition, which is a nonsense concept in it's own right when you realise that the legislature is supposed to be a single entity made of individuals, not a 'government' and an 'opposition'.) and then just accepting whoever the PM wants as ministers. the ministerial positions are sold for coalition support to force through bad laws (which Should be rejected) and to form large enough coalitions to get the leader of the largest party within said coalition the PM's spot. It's stupid. would Almost be better to just promote the top level of the bureaucracy up to the ministerial posts. Almost.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:00am

    Re:

    It's almost like, well, someone has been giving them tips.

    You mean like the **AA to the FBI?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:08am

    Re:

    Extradition hearings shouldn't require full disclosure of evidence.

    Wait what? So Afghanistan can press charges against you based on shady evidence that is not disclosed but you should not be able to see what you fight against because its extradition? No srsly, what kind of logic is that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:08am

    Re:

    "Extradition hearings shouldn't require full disclosure of evidence."

    I don't know what is the legal status on this, but that sounds like bullshit to me. Basically, what you are saying is that due process doesn't apply to extradition cases.

    What you are saying is that if, let's say, China wants to extradite you, they should just stage a world-class hissy-fit and demand your extradition. And then, the US (assuming you are American) would just dump you in China, because that is the neighbourly thing to do*.

    Is this what you want? Or is your hate of Megaupload such that you have become blind to reason?




    * Note that this is highly unlikely to happen, since China HAS staged a world-class hissy-fit over the Dalai Lama, and the US flat-out refused to extradite him. Oh, and China had "proof" too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:08am

    Re:

    No - of course the fundamental right to a fair trial should be ignored whenever the US feels it wants to extradite a citizen of another country. Defending Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus is "grandstanding", of course.

    /sarcasm off/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:09am

    Re:

    Insightful and funny. Marked both.

    Could it be that Mike will make it to the insightful/funny comments of the week before even commenting? 8D

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:12am

    Re: Re:

    You miss the point. What the NZ justice is trying to do is get the case tried in their jurisdiction. They should be able to accept a basic outline of the case, the KEY elements, and go "yup, there appears to be a case".

    Remember, you don't extradite because he is guilty, you extradite because he is charged. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:17am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Dear Anonymous Coward, please stop your shilling. The judgement is freely available on the net, and it *explicitly* says that this is not about transforming the extradition into a full trial hearing. *Nevertheless* the fundamental right to a fair trial means the defendants are entitled to the disclosure of evidence against them. You might not like it, but due process has been established to apply at *all* stages of criminal proceedings, and the extradition hearing is part of this.

    If you are no expert on the law, surely you can at least read?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Prisoner 201, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:20am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "You miss the point. What the NZ justice is trying to do is get the case tried in their jurisdiction. They should be able to accept a basic outline of the case, the KEY elements, and go "yup, there appears to be a case"."

    Absolutely, soverign states have no reason to have any form of due process when handing over people to other states.

    And regardless, if you are accused of a crime, you should unquestioningly allow yourself to be transported to another nation and stand trial there.

    Allowing the accused to see the evidence against him or her just gets in the way of Justice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:23am

    Re:

    ... Imbecile.

    diplomatic pressure won't affect the courts much. less than internal pressure from the public in the other direction, at least.

    and they Cannot afford to be seen as puppets of the crown, as the risk of that was Exactly why the general public were Against the removal of the monarch/privy council as the highest court of appeal in favour of the internal high court. the government of the day rammed it through Anyway, (sick of loosing cases that actually got that far when they pulled stupid shit, basically.), but the High Court loses all legitimacy the moment it starts being swayed by Anything other than evidence and the law as written at the time of the event.

    and with it would fall the government which was influenceing it.

    the current government here is Already in a precarious position, being known mostly for not having a valid plan and for outright lying to the public over and over again. (whatever idiot came up with the idea of claiming that Raising GST (a consumer Sales Tax, which is a regressive tax, hits those with a lower income much harder) and Lowering Income Tax (a progressive tax, in this case lowered most for the richest people) would somehow leave the Average New Zealander better off should be shot. not least because they were using the 'average income' as a basis for that. ... the average income which is about double what at LEAST half the population makes. ... let's not even get into the nonsense that is the claims about asset sales.)

    the New Zealand population is usually pretty laid back about stuff, but when you actually get them riled up (and this case is doing it) they tend to react quite significantly... and often in strange ways. (why riot when you can drive a tractor up parliament's steps and block the door with it? how exactly do you respond to the situation of the Highschool Students getting so pissed off with the constant disruption caused by disputes between the government and teachers that large numbers of said Students walk out on the school across the country at once? they didn't just go home, either, but mostly stayed in large groups being very obvious. (catching most officials completely by surprise and sort of in support of the teachers but mostly in support of getting their Classes back onto some sort of regular schedule. ring-leaders were a mix of the more disruptive and disreputable sorts and those who are normally the most well behaved model students. hilariously, at my own school at the time, a lot of the teachers knew it was going to happen. the principle, who the students generally agreed was rubbish, either didn't have a clue or had no idea how bad it was going to be)

    then there's protest marches half the length of the country or so, and if you go back a bit actual riots and the like.

    the whole anti-nuclear thing too. seriously, do you really expect a country that was willing to give up the protection offered by a treaty with the US against the (far more real and worrying possibility at the time than the US's worries about a communist 'domino effect') possibility of a resurgent Japanese empire in the name of a Principle (one adopted, hilarious, by ACCIDENT originally, though it proved too popular to be easily abandoned after the fact) and go so far as to forbid said country's ships (specifically the nuclear armed ones) entry to it's ports as well as the use of nuclear power in the country at all and has resisted all attempts to break that stance since, is going to Accept, no matter what it's government claims, such an offence on something far more concrete and immediate?

    go back about a hundred years now and you got actual wars. it's far enough in the past that it's unlikely to happen again, but not so far that people don't remember it as an option.

    and that's before even getting INTO the legalities and the idea of a fair hearing. nevermind JUSTICE.

    Justice must be swift, fair, and precise, neither punishing the innocent nor freeing the guilty, though letting the occasional guilty man free is better than punishing an innocent. likewise, there's a distinct limit to how much precision and fairness can be set aside for swiftness, but past a point a lack of swiftness leaves justice unserved.

    there is nothing fair, just, Or Legal, about what you suggest. At All.

    it is, in fact, the sort of thing wars are fought over, were it not for the large ocean in between and massive power difference between the nations in question.

    ... ... ok, this rant got sort of out of hand. oh well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:27am

    Re:

    "I suspect the FBI will just refuse outright, and apply pressure diplomatically to get the NZ courts to wake up and realize their mistake.

    Extradition hearings shouldn't require full disclosure of evidence. It seems like the judges there are grandstadning and going way past the legal requirements. It's almost like, well, someone has been giving them tips."

    That's cute. When one of us ACs on the other side of the issue says anything like this you say where's the proof that someone told the judge how to rule or no way was their a mistake the judge followed the law. But when a judge makes a ruling you don't like, well... they are wrong and need to have their mistake corrected by outside influences and someone must've gotten to them and persuaded them to rule that way.

    The hypocrisy is strong in you, AC.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:27am

    Re:

    Criminal is a word for them
    Bullying, cowardly, ignorant and ludicrous also work well individually and when put together.
    Also, inane, foolish, desperate and with anger control issues.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:29am

    Re: Re:

    "What you are saying is that if, let's say, China wants to extradite you, they should just stage a world-class hissy-fit and demand your extradition. "

    If China has an extradition treaty, and they indicate you for a crime, in good form, then the extradition generally should be good to go. I agree there needs to be at least a summary disclosure of the general information on the case (and perhaps disclosure of the key highlights of the evidence), but this isn't the time or the place for full evidence disclosure. He's not facing the NZ courts, he is suppose to be facing the US courts, after all.

    Can you imagine if evidence is released at this point which is later ruled not to be valid for the case in the US? Would that then make the extradition appealable?

    It seems like a pretty obvious thing to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:31am

    Re:

    You're just mad the FBI couldn't get away with the SWAT team, aren't you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:33am

    Re: Re: Re:

    no, you are missing the point.
    the NZ high court is saying that their court system should no longer just rubber stamp an extradition request simply because thats the way they used to do it. they have set the current standard to require that there actually be evidence to support the charges. if there is, they will extradite. if there is not, no extradition.

    its really not that difficult a concept.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:35am

    Re: Re:

    its called 'rectocranial inversion'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:37am

    LOL

    I'm picturing an episode of the Marx Bros. or the Three Stooges, as the FBI is on the phone with the MPAA asking for the "evidence" and in the background the legal staff of the MPAA and RIAA is putting together charts and tons of "research" that shows piracy is ruining grocery stores.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    soooooooooooooooooooooooo....... if its a hypothetical china throwing a hissyfit.. then yes, there needs to be disclosure.

    but a real case in NZ against someone the *AA's dont like- not one question should be raised & just ship 'em off...

    okay then....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    anon, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:48am

    oh

    I wonder if any of this would have been happening if Kim had not made this case so public , or kept it in the media by making some of the comments he has made.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    DUMBASS POLITICIANS, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:51am

    @3

    oh really so any nation can just start asking for it say your mouthing off there policies and they will just say you stole copyrighted stuff ?

    your an idiot #3

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    PopeRatzo (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 4:57am

    Re:

    New Zealand has a monarch? Who knew?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:09am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Basically, what you are saying is that all the rules get flushed down the toilet once extradition is involved? All it takes is an accusation and a semi-plausible story?

    This makes no sense to me, but, again, I don't know the intricacies of the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:14am

    Well, the recording industry has succeeded in setting itself up as "the man." It's a good thing a large portion of their core audience aren't a bunch of kids rebelling against "the man". That would be foolhardy and embarrassing for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:16am

    Re: Re:

    They don't have their own - so they borrow the Queen from the UK.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    don't worry, he might be saying this, but it's not what the law says. In a democracy, all stages of a case are subject to due process, and this has just been asserted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:28am

    Re: @3

    I, for one, would love to have the majority of Congress up on racketeering and conspiracy to defrausd charges.

    But I'm not a DA or AG.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:30am

    Re:

    "Extradition hearings shouldn't require full disclosure of evidence."

    You obviously didn't read the article, boy.
    It's not "full" disclosure, but the FBI has to show SOMETHING!

    "It's almost like, well, someone has been giving them tips."
    "Tips" that the FBI DOESN'T have any evidence?
    Seems obvious from the beginning...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:33am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Remember, you don't extradite because he is guilty, you extradite because he is charged."

    And to be charged, you have to have proof, boy.
    If New Zealand authorities showed up at your door and said you had been boiling imported koala bears alive and thus, would be extradited to NZ for trial, wouldn't you say "Where's your proof?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:36am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "If China has an extradition treaty, and they indicate you for a crime, in good form, then the extradition generally should be good to go."

    The FBI's lack of disclosure is not "good form".
    By your own logic, you've proven the point, boy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:39am

    This is a criminal trial and the burden is on the state to prove guilt; it is not the burden of the accused to prove innocence. This was a heavy-handed attempt to circumvent the most basic rights of Dotcom, and the high court opinion was well-reasoned and balanced.

    And yes, I am an American strongly disagreeing with the US Justice Department and applauding the actions of a foreign sovereign.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:40am

    Re: oh

    I wonder if any of this would have been happening if Kim had not made this case so public

    I don't think he started the "making it so public" - that would have begun with the use of military style tactics to arrest him and continued with the press announcements.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    martyburns (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Umm. Koalas are from Australia.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:56am

    Re:

    Egotistic narcissism is probably the best descriptor.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:03am

    Re: Re: Re:

    naaah. that's a European habit, that is. (not to mention such monarchs should be from the germanies. Tradition, that is!)

    We simply didn't give up our claim to the monarchy when we stopped being subordinate to Britain.

    (entertainingly, there IS a Kingdom of New Zealand. ... it's not the same thing as the Country of New Zealand, as it contains a few other random odd bits and pieces in the area as well.)

    It's more a case of the British Monarchy collecting titles than of NZ borrowing the monarch.

    (and we Could have a separate monarch. it raises SERIOUS legitimacy issues for the entire government if said monarch is not a descendent of Queen Victoria though. and there's a bunch of treaties with other commonwealth dominions about changing the succession laws. it can be done, but there's a few other things that have to be sorted out if it is... (basically amounts to them all making the same changes at the same time. that's why it was such a big deal recently when the succession laws were changed to no longer give male heirs priority over female heirs. EVERY country in personal union under the queen had to agree to it for it not to cause issues. (more in the 'oh, God, now we've got to untangle THIS mess because someone CHANGED SOMETHING!' sort than the actual Problem sort.))

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:06am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Absolutely and unequivocally wrong and if you actually studied comparitive law especially with regard to commonwealth countries you would come across a doctrine called "procedural Fairness" (or natural justice) that states that the right of an accused to question their accusers in ALL matters is paramount, as well as the absolute right of impartiality on all sides. The first part the USA refuse to do in not only this matter but even in your own country (example being the concept of the US Grand Jury system, which is an abomination in every democratic country outside of the USA)

    Balance of probabilities and/or reasonable doubt is irrelevant. Procedural fairness and the rights of the accused are first and foremost no matter what the USA think or fantasise about

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    ehh, could still happen if he was (supposedly) here when he did it.

    but...

    yeah, that'd just be a cruelty to animals charge, which is significant, rather than a 'harming endangered species' type charge, which...
    ...
    ...
    well, it's not considered as serious as molesting children, i suppose.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    He did say they were imported.

    Just sayin.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:10am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You really don't understand treaties do you?

    Just because a county has a treaty does not exclude their higher laws from voiding that treaty in specific circumstances.

    Also you are hypocritical since it seems it is ok for the USA to void treaties but not any other country? Since the USA has voided their reciprocity treaties of law enforcement with NZ by removing evidence without authority. Hmmmm

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    ld, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:12am

    Re:

    So it's just OK because the government says so? Without showing some evidence to the judges in the extradition hearing, how on earth are they supposed to decide if extradition is warranted? Just because the FBI says it is?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    anon, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:13am

    love it

    Kim has already said that he is going to sue everyone involved with this and he has a very good chance of being able to claim the 4 - 5 billion that it was judged to be worth by the banks, in a totally independent way before it was taken down. I would love to read headlines where he has seized mansions and cars and everything from those that were involved with this. LOL.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:15am

    Re: Re:

    Exactly.. This part is easily false:

    that there is "nothing incompatible" with revealing the evidence in New Zealand and then using it in the US case should extradition be granted.
    I mean, really? If they have to show him the evidence, he might be able to defend against it! How would that be fair to the DoJ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:17am

    Re: Re:

    ... ... ok, this rant got sort of out of hand. oh well.

    Not at all, I agree 100% with what you are stating and have this same argument with a lot of US Attorneys who are too caught up in their broken legal system, cannot see the forest from the trees, have an apathetic tolerance of the broken separation of powers that is the US court/executive/legislature that they cannot abide a sovereign state where that separation actually exists (jealousy maybe?) and hate how they cannot BUY courts and independent authorities like they can in the Republic (and never the democracy) that is the USA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    He could have said Kiwi's but that'd be all kinds of messed up.....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Jim McGinn, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:19am

    USA invades New Zealand, story on news at 6.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    DOlz, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:19am

    Re: Re:

    In this case the US government (a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA and MPAA) is acting like a tinpot god with delusions of competence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:20am

    Re: oh

    Knowing the New Zealand legal system and courts (not unlike my own in Australia) this would of happened (just not as publicly) no matter what since the NZ Courts actually understand the concept of equity, impartiality, and the rights of all parties and don't give a stuff about politics or so called "destroying relations with friendly countries".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Actually it would be harming endangering animals now.. the cute little critters (which are in reality are vicious little shits) are now classified on an endangered list (lowest classification though).

    Kangaroos and Emus though... now they are just yum!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    When good old Queen Lizzie II removes herself, though it looks like if she can Jump out of helicopters al la James Bond style for the Olympics that wont be for a while ;) I propose that Australia and New Zealand either will become Republics of if not then we will take William and Kate, and you lot can have Charlie and Horse..oops Camilla

    muwahahahahahaha

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Whats obvious is that there is no evidence. If there were the US would be happy to wave it around screaming loudly, 'GOTCHA !" . Once he's on US soil KDC can be kept in jail as an example for an indeterminate amount of time while the US legal wheels turn very, very slowly, making a fine example of him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:58am

    Re: Re:

    That is not exactly correct.

    "Under New Zealand law, extradition is governed by the Extradition Act of 1999 and any bilateral treaty in place.1 The United States and New Zealand entered into an extradition treaty in 1970.2 That treaty lists thirty-two offenses for which subjects can be extradited; criminal copyright infringement is not one of them. However, under New Zealand’s Extradition Act, section 101B, someone may also be extradited for offenses that carry a penalty of not less than one year in the requesting country and involves conduct that would be criminal had it occurred in New Zealand and carries a similar penalty. Extradition of suspects indicted but not convicted require an arrest warrant and any accompanying depositions.

    Here, the extradition hearing is likely to hinge on whether the offenses Dotcom has been charged with are offenses in New Zealand that would carry a similar penalty. Admittedly, the primary operation of Megaupload presents a novel set of facts for criminal liability of copyright infringement even in the US, but the indictment also alleges a number of the defendants personally uploaded infringing works to the service, which, by itself, could be sufficient to constitute an extraditable offense under New Zealand law."

    It seems that the NZ court's primary duty is to determine whether the offenses charged in the US are also chargeable offenses in NZ. On its face, that seems to imply only a judicial review of the statutes and evidence of violations. I see no inherent right for Dotcom to "face is accuser" anywhere other than during the actual criminal proceeding. In essence, an extradition hearing is more like a grand jury than an actual trial.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:03am

    Re:

    Asshattery Douchebaggery Foolhardishness, Idiotic
    aka - American Exceptionalism

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:10am

    i would suggest having a look here:-

    h**p://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-must-be-allowed-to-see-fbi-evidence-against-him-court-rules-1 20816/

    to get more info than has been posted at techdirt. as the naming of those involved (entertainment industry head execs and US government heads) has been ordered by the court as well, you can bet that the US will either be appealing the decision, even though there is nowhere for it to appeal to or it will be ignoring the NZ court totally. if it complies but deliberately omits relevant information, i suspect there will be severe consequences. the contempt the US is getting for itself worldwide is increasing on a daily basis

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:11am

    Re:

    "Extradition hearings shouldn't require full disclosure of evidence"

    It seems that the Anonymous Coward is condoning an illegal action, which would break extradition law.

    It's not surprising coming from such a criminal Anonymous Coward.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Umm. Koalas are from Australia."

    There are some in NZ.
    I saw them on Animal Planet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:21am

    In the off-chance any of the Techdirt panel of experts seeks to become more familiar with how extradition law works rather than how they wish it works; here's a good reference:

    http://www.usip.org/files/MC2/MC2-21-Ch14.pdf

    Article 315: Extradition Hearing; is particularly pertinent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:22am

    Re: Re:

    Not true Perry Mason. See citation in Post 62.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:24am

    Re: @3

    your an idiot #3

    oh, the irony....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:24am

    Re: Re: @3

    or a citizen for that matter

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:28am

    Re: Re: Re:

    @ #57

    i would have said it is about whether Kim is likely to get a fair trial. if he hasn't been made fully aware of all charges and all 'evidence' used to make those charges, how can he defend himself, regardless of where he appears in court? would you be happy to be whisked off to somewhere else and put on trial before knowing what you had done wrong, how you had done wrong or how to dispute the charges against you? the chances of you finding any evidence to aid your defense would vary between extremely slim and none at all if you are already banged up in jail!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:37am

    Re: love it

    Hahahaha. You should read the Federal Tort Claims Act before you start helping Fat Bastard count his money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    Coyote (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:38am

    Re: Re: Re:

    In other words, we should totally allow random people to be extradited based on zero empirical evidence, no matter who they are, because the accused do not deserve a fair trial -- especially one in which they know the evidence against them and can then use it, fairly, in a court of law, because of 'good form'?

    Next you'll tell me 'good form' means they throw a hissy fit in a gentlemanly manner, only to then execute you as soon as you enter China, because you saw more than you should've seen, or you're a human rights activist, or you're the Dalai Lama.

    The world you live in would be utterly retarded, and one I would rather see burn than anything else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Gene Poole, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:44am

    Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:39am

    Doesn't the US have a new act in place that throws out the need for a trial, proven guilt, habeus corpus, etc? Can't they just lock him up indefinitely once he's on US soil? I know if it were me in such a position I'd feel a lot more comfortable knowing that there was real evidence against me. Seems to me the rules of extradition changed the moment the US passed the indefinite detention part of the NDAA

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    While the likelihood of receiving a fair trial is germane to the extradition process, the US judiciary is regarded as the most impartial, fair and accessible judiciary in the world. The notion that a foreign court would hold that Dotcom wouldn't get a fair trial in the US is laughable.

    As far as charges and evidence goes, Dotcom is well aware of the content of the indictment. Evidence held by the US Attorney is subject to the discovery process, which is governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Again, there's no basis for a NZ judge to believe that Dotcom would't have full access once the criminal phase begins.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:48am

    Re:

    the MLA is moot under this decision of the NZHC

    Especially since this decision is NOT about the extradition hearing itself since , but about a judicial review of the unlawful procedures (specifically states as unlawful too) that led up to the arrest after an MLA was applied for, and especially after the crown was told NOT to release evidence by a lower court to third parties that under NZ law are classified as victims/witnesses ONLY !

    NZ Bill of Rights, Procedural fairness doctrines, and the UNHR take precedence over the MLA and any non equitable procedures that the US DoJ wants.

    This is NOT anything like a grand jury situation (or should we call it what a Grand Jury really is - a Star Chamber), the extradition hearings are based on tribunal structures that still have to abide by rules of evidence, procedural fairness, and other judicial rules (bench and otherwise).

    The right of an accused to confront their accuser with all relevant material that the accuser has still exists, though admittedly in a less limited way than in a full criminal trial.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:49am

    Re: Re: love it

    Maybe you should study comparitive laws before you make such a specious statement

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    it is my understanding that everyone still ends up with Charles.

    and republicanism... blech.

    you know how bad our parliament is already, right?

    now imagine that, except that the same force which create it ALSO apply to the head of state.

    the monarchy serves at Least one purpose (i'd argue it serves more, but even most republicans can see this one): while it exists, no other entity can attain ultimate moral authority within the country. no coup can attain true legitimacy unless it has the support of the monarchy ( not the nebulous 'crown' but the monarch themselves) And the people.
    ... it's been too long since i read it, so i'm not explaining so well.

    now, if we could get rid of Parliament, THAT i could get behind. well, if someone had a better idea to replace it, anyway. ... or at least the current lot who either benefit from how things work or are stuck on 'tradition' and reform the system somewhat.

    heck, i could make a case for ending the union on the basis that if we had our own monarch who actually had to LIVE here and who's livelihood depended on the country doing well they might actually be motivated to stomp on the insanity and bad ideas that come out of parliament, rather than rubber-stamping them. (the current system requiring a majority to form a coalition results in 'we'll help you pass your stupid-bad-idea law if you help us pass our stupid-bad-idea law' agreements being more common than they otherwise would be, for one thing. why do they even NEED a coalition? the monarch appoints whoever of the available candidates is best for each ministerial job and otherwise parliament as a whole is a single entity. if you try to pass a law and can't pass it it's a BAD LAW, not a sign that the system doesn't let you govern properly. i don't know where the idea that a sub-set of parliament which can't just pass whatever the hell it want's is a Bad thing came from... that particular bit of stupid will never make sense to me.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:55am

    Re: Re: oh

    eeeh... *hand-wavy* i question slightly their ability to not be influenced at least a Bit by the politicians if the general public weren't watching closely.

    but nothing like on the scale the US would like, true. and given the number and extremity of stuff ups in this case, the end point would probably be the same. heh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    SAG, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:55am

    Re:

    I lean towards Whack-a-dotcom though the holes in the board must be enormous...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    DogBreath, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    But this is Cardassian law we're talking about, and as everyone knows the accused has already been found guilty before the trial even begins:

    Crime and punishment : Cardassians

    Under Cardassian law, guilt was confirmed prior to Court proceedings – the trials themselves served only as a way to demonstrate the wrongdoing of the defendants and to illustrate the consequences of their alleged criminal behavior. Defendants were provided with legal counsel merely to help them "concede" the "wisdom" of the state's judicial process, as well as help them to admit guilt and express "proper" remorse. Cardassian judicial penalties were usually severe: in at least some cases, the courts had already scheduled the accused's execution before the trial began.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    wow... you really don't get out much and actually believe the tripe they told you in the American Law Journals or in your US law 101 college class.

    Talk to lawyers from other countries that have dealt with both US legal system and their own criminal, common, mixed or civil law systems before you take as 'fact' that statement of how the US legal system (which includes the judiciary) is

    As for the evidence held by the US. That is now subject to absolute questioning of authenticity since it is unlawfully possessed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re: @3

    ignorance, stupidity, laziness, and lack-of-care-in-haste do not equate.

    though they often produce indistinguishable results, it's true.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:58am

    Re:

    To be fair, it's parts of the NZ gov't that let them get away with this in the first place.

    Not to take away from the US gov't tinpot assbaggery (can we come to a consensus on that?), which is epic, but the raid was approved of and implemented by NZ gov't. Without NZ gov't complicity, this wouldn't have happened.

    That being said, your judicial system seems quite respectable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 7:58am

    Re: Re: Re: love it

    ehh, there is that US law that says he can't sue the state unless they let him, i believe? makes it kind of hard to claim anything back there.

    (other than that i know nothing on the subject, but meh *shrugs*)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: love it

    Sovereign Immunity, in which the AC is referring and that I think you are alluding to is granted an ability of any govt to use as an absolute defence.

    Though what most people don't understand is that the defence of Sovereign Immunity only applies to the actual citizens of that sovereignty.

    Foreign entities can sue the USG to their hearts content in other jurisdictions and in the US itself and the USG has to defend itself fully as a standard respondent.

    In other words.. The US people can be shafted civilly by their government, but foreigners can't be that easily. Though it seems they can be called terrorists nowadays instead *eyeroll*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:06am

    Re:

    Well, the recording industry has succeeded in setting itself up as "the man."

    I'm pretty sure the coked-up overpaid execs in the recording/movie industry are feeling like "the man".

    However I'm equally sure the industry doesn't generate the capital to be anything but a tool for "the man".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    DogBreath, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:07am

    Re: LOL

    Don't forget to include Abbott And Costello doing the math.

    Abbott And Costello 13 X 7 is 28

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:09am

    Re:

    not sure how far that one would get them.
    has decent odds of losing them the vast majority of their allies, actually.

    ...

    possibly including Canada.

    depends on a bunch of stuff i don't really know about, but a LOT of the US's allies have closer ties with us than them, ya know?

    'course, the nature of the situation is that it'd have to be a group effort, as i don't think any of them would be willing to be the first to do it by themselves.

    ... side effect of being a western, commonwealth, democratic (however dysfunctional representative democracy may be, NZ's one of the better examples of it) 'capitalist' nation with no strategic resources (save claims to large parts of Antarctica which the US refuses to recognize anyway, and being the main access point to said continent... but going to war with us, or something of that nature, would be the only way to Lose that access anyway... seriously, there is NOTHING worth having here that wouldn't be destroyed in the process of taking the place by military force... and NZ's terrain is A: damn near impossible to defend (our government's attitude towards our navy is INSANE) and B: almost as hard to secure once you've captured it. ... mountains and the bush are kind of hard to secure... then there's the fiords (and yes, that's spelled right) and the fun of active volcanoes just for giggles... and 3000 dollar cruise-missiles built from off the shelf civilian parts...)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re: Re: @3

    Which actually means if he was damaged by the removal of MegaUpload and that removal is found to be wanting he CAN sue and charge those responsible for vicarious liability, , tortuous interference and a menagerie of other torts.

    Isn't it great to NOT be a US citizen!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: love it

    He may not need too, he can shop for a better forum and sue them there.

    Germany is great for this kind of thing their laws are just marvelous, he just can't sue in the UK or France since those 2 countries have very strong interest in the matter.

    But Mr. Dotcom could also sue in NZ, I am sure those people in the MPAA and RIAA have representatives in those places and they could be held responsible, since this is the same game the MAFIAA is playing ignoring the infringers and going for everybody else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:11am

    Re:

    Christ almighty, have you read it?

    Article 315, paragraph 4 subparagraphs j through l, and paragraph 5 subparagraphs a and b apply.


    Further, not sure what bearing a document from the "United States Institute of Peace" has on the matter, but I'm sure you can elaborate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    martyburns (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, I saw that but he also said he would have to be extradited to NZ. Now Im confused.

    Anyway, go NZ judges!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:12am

    Re: Re:

    I like to note that the extradition hearing stated above is for the US, I would love to see him bring up the NZ extradition hearing protocols.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:13am

    Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 16th, 2012 @ 5:39am

    I tend to agree. Why would a democratic nation ever allow its citizens to be extradited to the US since the unPatriotic Act.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:14am

    Re:

    ehh... not sure how severe they can really be.

    non-extradition of Kim Dotcom.

    and... what?

    the NZG will do crap-all. the current administration basically Wishes they were the US government.

    the courts as a whole deciding that any extradition request by the US will be automatically turned down regardless of any other factors? ... I'm not even sure how that would work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:17am

    Re:

    Nonsequitroll

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Quote:
    the US judiciary is regarded as the most impartial, fair and accessible judiciary in the world.


    As an American citizen I have one word.

    LooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL

    If you said fairer than most I could believe it, but the most, you got to be kidding, even the honesty-o-meter puts the US well behind others countries.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/David-R.-Francis/2011/0211/Is-honesty-waning-in-Am erican-business

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:21am

    Re: Re:

    Also the Australian people (and the govt after the treat of civil war is shown) would absolutely declare war on the USA.

    That's because we actually like, trust, respect and have a HUGE history (ANZAC for example) with New Zealand. Yeah we like to tease each other but other than the weird accent ;) we are very similar culturally and we both don't take crap when it comes to the crunch.

    I'd also be one of the first volunteers in any military action against any invaders of New Zealand, and I know a lot of soldiers past and present who would not take a moments hesitation in taking on the Ice-cream soldiers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:24am

    Re: Re:

    Wait for it.

    He will come back with a wild theory of why that your interpretation is wrong and how he is right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:41am

    Re: Re: LOL

    So that's how they teach math in the MPAA/RIAA. That act helps to explain the $8 billion dollar ipod

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: @3

    It's still great to be a US citizen. If the fallout from this case helps break the revolving door between the government and the legacy media industries, it will be worth every penny.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'd also be one of the first volunteers in any military action against any invaders of New Zealand, and I know a lot of soldiers past and present who would not take a moments hesitation in taking on the Ice-cream soldiers.

    Oh please, your regular army is roundly derided as feckless international cowards.

    From the NZ Herald:

    "Hammett said anecdotal evidence suggested that disillusionment was a major factor in the infantry's problems in keeping its soldiers.

    In Afghanistan, where American, British and Canadian counterparts were aggressively used against the enemy, the restriction of Australian infantry to the protection of its reconstruction task force had drawn adverse comment and questions from the international media.

    "The restrictions placed on deployed elements ... have at times made Australian infantrymen ashamed of wearing their Australian uniform and regimental hat badge," Hammett said.

    He said that at the combat coalface, Canberra's claims to be a staunch ally of the US were dismissed as political rhetoric. While American, British and Canadian soldiers laid their lives on the line, Australian infantry appeared to do little more than act as interested spectators.

    Despite mutual diplomatic accolades, Australia's contributions to both Iraq and Afghanistan had been derided and scorned by soldiers and officers of other nations more vigorously engaged in combat."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:55am

    Re:

    World War 1 was started by an assassination.

    World War 2 was started by a genocidal mad man.

    World War 3...... will be started over copyrights.

    Sigh... I don't want to live on this planet any more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:03am

    Re: Re:

    It largely references UN model language and does a good job of explaining the nuances. As you will note, I offered it as a general reference as many commenters are pulling it bits and pieces of various judicial concepts to argue their position, rather than bothering to seek to understand the actual process and principles of international extradition. If you read it, you would understand that many commenters are simply grasping at straws rather than dealing with facts, as usual.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:05am

    Re: Re:

    The right of an accused to confront their accuser with all relevant material that the accuser has still exists, though admittedly in a less limited way than in a full criminal trial.

    Do you mean a more limited way?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You see, you quote something and don't even realize that the quote goes against what you said.

    You stated, "Oh please, your regular army is roundly derided as feckless international cowards."

    Then you quote a piece that says Australian infantrymen are ashamed of wearing the uniform/badge because of said restrictions placed upon them.

    Basically, what this means, since you obviously didn't get it, is that those Australians are indeed willing to put their lives on the line and are not cowards, however, they do have to follow orders, and some orders placed upon them are restricting what they can or can't do and what actions they can or can't take part in.

    This, again to put simply for you, means that they are very much now "feckless international cowards".

    Also, the Afghanistan war is very much a U.S. problem/war and the reasons for being there have seemed to change as needed to keep the war going. So, a reasonable person should see the Australians limiting their part as a rational thing, putting the lives of their own countrymen before the need to help the U.S. continue on their tirade to rage war left and right. War on drugs, war on piracy, war on blah blah freaking blah. (And I say that last bit as a U.S. citizen.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Should be NOT, not "now".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    identicon
    DCX2, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:12am

    Re:

    Extradition hearings shouldn't require full disclosure of evidence.

    Full disclosure, no.

    Evidence that the actions in question were criminal and not civil...yes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:27am

    Foolhardishness

    I like the new word "foolhardish". I hereby define it as meaning "hardship brought on by a foolhardy action" and will begin using at every opportunity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I said they were considered cowards. And they are considered cowards. You are right that the cowardice seems to be leadership driven. So the Australian army should continue washing the real soldiers uniforms and cooking their meals if their leaders have no stomach for actual fighting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Exhibit A: Bradley Manning.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:29am

    Re: Re:

    I have to assume that New Zealand was strongarmed into supporting the US position. Strongarming is how the US rolls.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are an idiot and have no clue what you are yabbering on about. I would also highly doubt that you have served any volunteer time in any armed service that wasn't some sort of hugfest with you playing with yourself most of the time.

    That article is talking about the ROE and other hugfest type restrictions that have been placed on soldiers that your Special forces have stated "are the best in the world" and are up there with the British SAS.

    Though I have to also laugh at the hypocrisy of the whole article when you actually have been and seen the absolute bullshit that US soldiers need and require.

    Oh and EVERY single Aust and NZ soldier is and has been an actual volunteer and always has been in every single war that we have fought alongside British, USA and NATO personnel in the history of both Aust/NZ. Can you say the same about American soldiers?

    If you are the type of American (and I know for a fact your personality type is not a real indication of most intelligent Americans) that would be on the other side of this hypothetical declaration of war, I for one feel even more confidant about partaking in it.. Though there could be an ethical quandary of not feeling good about defeating a useless and incompetent adversary, but Oh well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, your comment can easily be seen for what it is, you saying Australian soldiers are cowards. Not that they were considered cowards, which was stated, but you basically calling them cowards. You then attempted to prove your point by posting a quote, which did anything but prove your point. Which I believe I adequately explained enough for you to now realize the error in using said quote to try and make your point.

    And again, with the cheap shot at the Australians. If you don't like someone, that's fine. Your entitled to your opinion, but at least be man enough to stand by it and state it flat out.

    Then again, what do I expect from another AC who doesn't like what was said by G Thompson, thus the cheap shot aimed at him (and his fellow countrymen) but an insult that he's not even man enough to stand behind.

    Is it no wonder you aren't taken seriously and people point out the hypocrisy on the part of yourself and other ACs who say similar things on a regular basis?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:34am

    Re:

    Extradition hearings shouldn't require full disclosure of evidence.


    The NZ court didn't say that it does. What they're saying is that enough evidence has to be presented to support the claim that the accused committed an extraditable offense according to NZ law, and that this hasn't been done.

    Personally, I assume that the amount of evidence required to meet this threshold depends on the exact case, though, so saying that extradition "shouldn't require disclosure of all the evidence" cannot possibly be compatible with justice in all cases. I'm not saying this is one of those cases -- I don't know. That's for a NZ court to decide.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What? Our judiciary is fair?! Give me a minute while I laugh myself unconscious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The UCMJ exists outside of US civilian jurisprudence. There are different rules that apply.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:36am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yes Yes I do.. thankyou for the error checking - my excuse will be it was approx 1:12am in the wee sparrow fart hours2 when I wrote that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: love it

    i was considering more the fact that there is nothing that would compel the USG to actually pay up rather than simply ignoring the ruling if it comes from a foreign court...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:38am

    Re:

    Nah, we only invade weak, friendless nations. New Zealand has strong friends.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:41am

    Re:

    What would be helpful is if you actually made some kind of point or analysis of the law, rather than just proving a link to the pdf of the law. Your analysis may provide insight. Just saying "read this" does not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It seems as though English is not your first language. I said,"Oh please, your regular army is roundly derided as feckless international cowards." And I backed it up with an excerpt from the NZ Herald. I'd didn't say Australian soldiers were cowards. In fact, the special forces are engaged in fighting and acquit themselves well in battle. The regular army is engaged in laundry, cooking and unloading boxes. And due to them occupying that role-which apparently they themselves have limited themselves to- are derided as cowards. Why do you think the article talks about the shame the soldiers feel? They know that the soldiers in the other countries combat missions mock them as being cowards for avoiding harm's way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    ... odd.

    NZ troops were quite happy under similar restrictions, to my understanding.

    'course, that was due to a combination of the war in question generally being considered to be a dumb idea and the fact that helping with the rebuild and NOT being party to the original destruction tends to lead to the locals being quite friendly.

    there's a lot of places you can go where US soldiers would be spat upon (well, were it not for the risk of them shooting you, legality be damned) while NZ troops are greeted with smiles and gifts.

    ... being the 'good cop' has it's advantages.

    (also, the Australian and New Zealand practice of pacifying an area by way of what amount to less brutal versions of the old Japanese sword-hunts is generally a HELL of a lot more effective than the US method of arming everyone who even MIGHT be on their side with better weapons. tends to lead to a situation where they can turn things over to local police types a heck of a lot quicker, too.)

    ... this is less a specific reply than thoughts in response to the entire comment thread to this point.

    (also, seriously? who the hell thinks Australian troops are cowards? I've heard that of US troops often enough, though it's not the Most common derogatory statement about them, but Australians? really? *sigh*)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oh and EVERY single Aust and NZ soldier is and has been an actual volunteer and always has been in every single war that we have fought alongside British, USA and NATO personnel in the history of both Aust/NZ. Can you say the same about American soldiers?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Australia

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: love it

    Like in any other civil matter the court can order liquidation of assets to meet any costs awarded against the respondent, which in this case would be the USG.

    This would then entail that either the USG pays what it owes or assets of the USG in the jurisdiction can be frozen and liquidated.

    This hypothetical situation is not in reality unusual to at least get to the situation of the court threatening the possibility. Ego and negative publicity via MSM in jurisdiction etc normally makes the offending country pay up to avoid a publicity nightmare

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:05am

    Re: Re:

    ... i kinda wonder how long that would last if the US did actually attack us, to be honest. I mean, there's the Commonwealth, but the strongest members of That are all but in the US's pockets... China might take issue with such a situation, but probably not and the outcome of Them coming to our defence in such a manner would be as bad as just rolling over for the US, i think. our relations with Japan are... weird. (oddly close in some regards for how hostile they are in others...) we get on fairly well with Korea, as i understand it, but they can't really afford to get on the US's bad side... we don't really get on with France... the various pacific nations hardly count as 'strong', Canada really couldn't afford a war with the US, i don't know if we even Interact with Mexico, i can't see Chile being much help... I've got No idea what South Africa would do (there's another weird relationship if you look at the history of it)

    Australia's a toss up depending on it's government and public sentiment at the time ('Help NZ almost instinctively' vs 'getting in a war with the US is not really healthy' basically), the UK seems to be putting serious effort into being a US... well, not quite a Puppet... client state? not much hope of help there. I don't think Indonesia likes us... India would probably have no reason to get involved...

    seriously, NZ vs the US? with our navy and air force basically gutted of actual combat capacity and the vast majority of our cities being on the coast i don't really see how we'd win such a war, or even drag it out all that long.

    become a quagmire after the fact? sure. but not actually defend the place. (i've heard some surprisingly cheap, logical, Viable ideas for defending NZ properly... but they all come at the expense of Any power-projection. ... ... so instead we have a couple of frigates and some dodgy transport ships for an army Designed almost from the ground up purely to serve as auxiliaries for other countries in their wars. ... this isn't even actually helping our allies for mutual gain, or hiring out our troops as mercenaries to keep their experience levels up. it's us paying to send troops to fight other people's battles and wars which we get NOTHING out of. it's stupid!)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:09am

    I wonder what excuse the US government will come up with for refusing this order...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: love it

    ... I'm not entirely sure they care overly much about the threat of 'negative publicity' any more at this point either.

    I mean, they seem to be doing everything they can to generate More of it, as is...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As a matter of fact, I understand that the Aussie troops in Afghanistan have adopted the motto: "Thank God for the French".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah its weird and doesn't really bother me, though seeing as how he has just alluded to myself being also a coward (since I am still a member of the reserves) I have no further wish to reply to his idiocy.

    Though looking at his reply below he himself cannot understand English and never read the full Wikipedia article about conscription he actually quoted below especially about the parts where we no Conscript has EVER fought alongside UK/US/Etc troops only volunteers. Conscripts were used in Vietnam yes but our High Court stated it was unlawful and they never actually fought with the Yanks (Though the AU SAS and Volunteer forced did)

    anyway I'm off home and then to bed. Have fun ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I hear you, but you have to look at it from a larger perspective.

    First, the disparity between the might of the US military and the NZ military isn't as big of an issue as it may seem. Look at the last two nations we've invaded: Afghanistan and Iran. Both of those has pitiful military forces and no allies, and both of those cost the US dearly to engage in. They demonstrated pretty well that while the US can blow stuff up very well, we cannot operate in manner that is cost-effective enough to sustain an operation against a nation that is not already broken.

    Also, if we were to invade a nation like New Zealand, which is not perceived as being a bad actor on the world stage, the US would have a lot of opposition from nations that would otherwise either support the US or stay out of the way. It doesn't matter if those nations like New Zealand or not. The US would be opposed because we would have become an obvious danger to peace-loving nations around the world.

    And lastly, the US military has a huge weakness: we cannot operate effectively without access to critical materials that are almost completely under the control of other nations. Rare metals and so forth. Without a constant supply of those, our military would grind to a halt in a matter of months. If those nations were to cut us off, and we were to use the military to force them to give us the stuff, it would be a world war that the US would likely lose.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I said "Iran" but meant "Iraq". I hope that wasn't a freudian slip.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    icon
    Corby (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "I mean, really? If they have to show him the evidence, he might be able to defend against it! How would that be fair to the DoJ?"

    Of course the DOJ don't want him to see the evidence because they don't want him to be able to defend himself against it. It would be unfair and unlawful to deprive someone to see the evidence and then defend themself of the evidence made against them but then in the eyes of the DOJ it is lawful to deprive someone of that exact same right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah its weird and doesn't really bother me, though seeing as how he has just alluded to myself being also a coward (since I am still a member of the reserves)

    Again, I have only noted that your regular army is regarded by other fighting armies in Afghanistan as cowards for hiding out in a safe region performing domestic chores instead of going where the action is and fighting. You are really dense.

    I have no further wish to reply to his idiocy.

    Chicken

    Though looking at his reply below he himself cannot understand English and never read the full Wikipedia article about conscription he actually quoted below especially about the parts where we no Conscript has EVER fought alongside UK/US/Etc troops only volunteers. Conscripts were used in Vietnam yes but our High Court stated it was unlawful and they never actually fought with the Yanks (Though the AU SAS and Volunteer forced did)

    anyway I'm off home and then to bed. Have fun ;)


    So conscripts were NEVER used, except of course in Vietnam which was declared unlawful by the High Court which means that they were never were there? Got it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, English is my first language, but unlike yourself I can read things properly. You very much were aiming that comment at G Thompson, you were also very much implying that Australian soldiers are cowards. You ATTEMPTED to back it up with an excerpt from the NZ Herald, however, said excerpt DID NOT back up your assertion/what you implied.

    "Why do you think the article talks about the shame the soldiers feel? They know that the soldiers in the other countries combat missions mock them as being cowards for avoiding harm's way."

    I don't know, it could be interpreted by different people differently. You think it's because the soldiers feel shame as being mocked as cowards by others. I think it mentions that bit because the soldiers might feel ashamed at not being able to do more, however they are following the orders and restrictions placed upon them.

    Either way, it DOES NOT support what you implied/stated.

    Also, as G Thompson has noted, and which I yet again am forced to point out, that little wiki piece you're attempting to use to back up your comments is again not actually backing them up.

    For instance, "Australia currently has no conscription." That is within the first few lines on the article.

    Secondly, if you actually read it, while conscription has been put to vote and passed, no Australians have been conscripted and sent to fight outside of Australian territories. (Which backs up what G Thompson said, that the only Australians to fight alongside British, US, and NATO personnel have been doing so of their own volition. Meaning they volunteered to do so. Which again, shows just who might be suffering from "English isn't their first language". I'll give you a hint, it's you. That or you just suck at reading and reading comprehension, as well as basic understanding of how to make a point and then actually make sure the proof presented to support your point does indeed support it, rather than prove you wrong. You're doing G Thompson's and my work for us. Shooting down your own points with evidence you yourself are presenting. Hilarious does not even begin to cover such foolishness.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wikipedia called, they disagree with your assertion that conscripts not fighting in Vietnam:

    15,381 conscripted national servicemen served from 1965 to 1972, sustaining 202 killed and 1,279 wounded.[70] In addition there were six Australians listed as missing in action, although these men are included in the list of Australians killed in action and the last of their remains were finally located and returned to Australia in 2009.

    Hey, you should be proud. At least this time they were fighting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    identicon
    ChimpObama McBinLadenBurton, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:18am

    IMAGINE THAT!

    Whoo Hoo!

    Imagine that: being able to tell the Fascist,

    "No, you show me YOUR papers!"

    COMBB

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Again, I have only noted that your regular army is regarded by other fighting armies in Afghanistan as cowards for hiding out in a safe region performing domestic chores instead of going where the action is and fighting. You are really dense."

    I'm going to say this because G Thompson isn't up for playing with you. But you did indeed note such a thing, but you noted it in a manner that was purely your opinion. No such proof has been presented to back up your claim that other armies fighting in Afghanistan view the Australians as cowards. Your "citation" presents no proof to support your claims.

    Secondly, the dense one here is yourself. That remark you made was after G Thompson basically said he'd fight for New Zealand and so would others. You basically called him and his countrymen cowards, then tried to spin that into you not saying it but that's what others have said and feel.

    Again, be a man, state what you feel. But don't try and paint your opinion as fact, at least not without proof supporting it.

    "Chicken"

    Thanks for proving his point, he's doing the smart thing by not replying to your stupidity. And you're proving you're an idiot who only wants attention and to insult others.

    Also, it's worth noting that Vietnam wasn't actually a war. It was and still is considered a conflict, as such G Thompson's statement stands true. No Aussies have been conscripted to fight in any wars (outside of Australian related matters and territories), many however have volunteered to fight in wars alongside other forces. (With the one exception being Vietnam, which as I pointed out wasn't an actual war.)

    You're grasping at straws and looking more and more foolish. Just give it up. You insulted G Thompson and his countrymen. You got called out on your opinion, and now are being ignored. It happens. Move on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, English is my first language, but unlike yourself I can read things properly. You very much were aiming that comment at G Thompson, you were also very much implying that Australian soldiers are cowards. You ATTEMPTED to back it up with an excerpt from the NZ Herald, however, said excerpt DID NOT back up your assertion/what you implied.

    "Why do you think the article talks about the shame the soldiers feel? They know that the soldiers in the other countries combat missions mock them as being cowards for avoiding harm's way."

    I don't know, it could be interpreted by different people differently. You think it's because the soldiers feel shame as being mocked as cowards by others. I think it mentions that bit because the soldiers might feel ashamed at not being able to do more, however they are following the orders and restrictions placed upon them.

    Either way, it DOES NOT support what you implied/stated.


    Read what I said :

    "Oh please, your regular army is roundly derided as feckless international cowards."

    The article then describes how they are viewed as cowards by the other fighting forces. Seriously, are you really so desperate?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:25am

    Re: Re:

    Where "The Man" is more Jim Carrey in The Mask and less Samuel L. Jackson in Snakes on a Plane.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Secondly, if you actually read it, while conscription has been put to vote and passed, no Australians have been conscripted and sent to fight outside of Australian territories. (Which backs up what G Thompson said, that the only Australians to fight alongside British, US, and NATO personnel have been doing so of their own volition. Meaning they volunteered to do so. Which again, shows just who might be suffering from "English isn't their first language". I'll give you a hint, it's you. That or you just suck at reading and reading comprehension, as well as basic understanding of how to make a point and then actually make sure the proof presented to support your point does indeed support it, rather than prove you wrong. You're doing G Thompson's and my work for us. Shooting down your own points with evidence you yourself are presenting. Hilarious does not even begin to cover such foolishness.)

    Except that; according to Wikipedia, conscripts in the Australian army did fight and die in Vietnam:

    "15,381 conscripted national servicemen served from 1965 to 1972, sustaining 202 killed and 1,279 wounded.[70] In addition there were six Australians listed as missing in action, although these men are included in the list of Australians killed in action and the last of their remains were finally located and returned to Australia in 2009."

    'scuse me, but you have some shit on your face.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138.  
    identicon
    Androgynous Cowherd, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:31am

    Standards for extradition should match those for indictment at home.

    If you ask me, the standard for extradition should be, at minimum, equivalent to that for getting an indictment of the suspect in their country of residence. In this case, the US should have to furnish at least as much evidence and argument as would be needed to indict Dotcom in New Zealand, and Dotcom and/or his counsel should have at least as much input into the proceedings and access to the evidence.

    In other words, to extradite, the rule should basically be "indict, go to country where suspect is and indict again there, then extradite". If not with a higher bar still.

    The reason is this: extradition should require a showing of reasonable probability that the prosecution can make its case, and that it could do so under the laws of the country of residence. This is, more or less, the same as the bar for getting an indictment for alleged criminal conduct within that country. So why not make it explicitly so?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Also, it's worth noting that Vietnam wasn't actually a war. It was and still is considered a conflict, as such G Thompson's statement stands true. No Aussies have been conscripted to fight in any wars (outside of Australian related matters and territories), many however have volunteered to fight in wars alongside other forces. (With the one exception being Vietnam, which as I pointed out wasn't an actual war.)

    You're grasping at straws and looking more and more foolish.


    You are kidding, right? I refute G Thompson's assertion that no conscript has ever fought in a war by documenting the deaths of more than 200 Australians and wounding of many hundred more and you pull the "technically it was not an actual war" card? Who is grasping at straws and looking foolish? It is truly pathetic that you would dishonor those who sacrificed so much by trying to diminish their service to their country.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140.  
    icon
    Togashi (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Apparently the US government misheard when people talked to them about Keeping Up With The Kardashians.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ah that's cute, first you insult Australians and call them cowards and then you say I'm the one dishonoring them by pointing out that Vietnam wasn't actually a war. It's not a "technically", it WAS NOT a war. It was the Vietnam Conflict, else the President would have had to get Congress' support to go to war.

    It's cute though how hung up you are. First you insult them, then you try and act shocked at me pointing out the facts and say I'm dishonoring their sacrifice.

    Secondly, I didn't dishonor their sacrifice, I merely pointed out that it wasn't a war. Not sure how that dishonors anyone.

    And the one with shit on his face is still you. Seriously, your original point failed and so have your others since. You're still wrong and the facts prove you wrong.

    Here's what you do, stop replying rather than grasping at straws to try and spin things so I look like the fool/bad one. Calls Australians soldiers cowards then says I'm dishonoring them by pointing out that Vietnam wasn't actually a war. Lol. Man, I love you ACs. You're such hypocrites. And hypocrites never cease to amuse me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:55am

    Re: Re: Re:

    normally I'd agree with you.

    with This government? i wouldn't even guarantee it wasn't their idea.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  143.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 12:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    not that they were following Those rules properly in that particular case either.

    nevermind that said 'rules' seem to go out the window when the individual in question is not a citizen of the USA. (and the rules when you Are apparently now include the President being able to order you assassinated with no further proceedings involved, unless i misunderstood.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  144.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 12:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    you're probably right, there. i'm just having a hard time seeing most of those countries considering such an act worthwhile over New Zealand.

    also, i have a hard time seeing the US government NOT going all 'fire AAAALL ze missiles!' on the world if such a war actually reached the point of enemy troops on their soil... and i wouldn't be at all surprised to see them being unwilling to sue for peace under any other circumstances.

    yeah, I'm something of a pessimist when it comes to these things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  145.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 12:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Lol. Man, I love you ACs. You're such hypocrites. And hypocrites never cease to amuse me.

    so sayeth the AC....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  146.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 12:43pm

    To New Zealand Goverment & New Zealand Courts

    As stated in many reports the US Government has broken many laws of New Zealand. If you are going to be fair, then the law breakers in New Zealand should be arrested and prosecuted! So Please arrest all the US Government employees that have violated your country's laws. If your country had people in the US breaking US laws, You would expect this to happen. Until the governments of the world start acting fairly and above board, it is WE THE PEOPLE that get hurt!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  147.  
    icon
    DH's Love Child (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 1:10pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "If China has an extradition treaty, and they indicate you for a crime"

    How does one get indicated for a crime? Seems to me that would be entrapment...

    On the other hand, if I were INDICTED, I would still have the right to fight the extradition order, and while IANAL, that usually means among the other things already pointed out, that they charging party has to show that they have enough (legally obtained)evidence to support a prima facie case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  148.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 1:17pm

    Re: To New Zealand Goverment & New Zealand Courts

    yeeeeah...

    our government refused to even consider investigating that when it came up...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  149.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 1:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    once again...read the judgement before you comment. What *you* think the extradition process should be is irrelevant. It has clearly been stated in Winkelmann's ruling what the process should be, and this is now binding. If you are a law student, note that there are different extradition treaties with different countries, and NZ is not the UK. NZ has chosen to highlight that this is an adversarial hearing subject to due process. Sorry, but what you think the process should be is all but irrelevant at this point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  150.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 2:04pm

    Re: “the US judiciary is regarded as the most impartial, fair and accessible judiciary in the world.”

    The nice thing about passive voice is that you can leave the subject out of the sentence altogether, and nobody notices.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  151.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 2:07pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The fact is what has been judged by now two courts in NZ to apply...I'm pretty sure these courts have a better grasp of extradition law than you...but never mind, since you seem to assume that there is only one type of extradition law in the fist place, which doesn't exactly make you an a grade student...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  152.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 2:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    also, i have a hard time seeing the US government NOT going all 'fire AAAALL ze missiles!' on the world if such a war actually reached the point of enemy troops on their soil


    I have absolutely no doubt that we would in that case. I think the rest of the world knows it as well and so they wouldn't do that. I think a strategy of containment would be more likely.

    You don't have to invade a nation to effectively defang it (despite what our military establishment would have us believe).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  153.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 2:30pm

    Re: Re:

    Someone's been playing "just the tip".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  154.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 2:39pm

    Re:

    "I suspect the FBI will just refuse outright, and apply pressure diplomatically ..."

    Or something like the TPP?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  155.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 2:59pm

    interesting

    It would be interesting if Dotcom were released and he turned around and tried to get his accusers extradicted to NZ. That would be fun.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  156.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 3:44pm

    M E G A B O X 90% PROFIT TO THE ARTISTS

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  157.  
    icon
    DH's Love Child (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:36pm

    Re: Re:

    I think we have a new word! LOVE it!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  158.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Extradition law is by definition international and therefore is pretty uniform throughout the world. Yes there are subtleties and nuances but in all in is very similar.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  159.  
    identicon
    Disgusted, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 8:54pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    IMHO, the MAFIAA (and many other "multinational corporations") will succeed in doing something the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Germans failed to do: the economic destruction of the US, all in the name of profits. Their purchase of the US Government and the US legal system will only mean our end, probably within 10 years. By the end of that time, they will have weakened us and subjected us to so much world hatred that we'll be easy pickings for the abovementioned entities

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  160.  
    identicon
    Disgusted, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:02pm

    Re: Re:

    That's OK. Just give the MAFIAA 10 years and NZ can walk in and take over the US. There won't be anything left.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  161.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "...the US judiciary is regarded as the most impartial, fair and accessible judiciary in the world."

    Methinks you watch too much Law & Order...

    "The notion that a foreign court would hold that Dotcom wouldn't get a fair trial in the US is laughable."

    Actually the NZ courts seem to be thinking just that thanks to the ongoing antics of the FBI and DoJ, but nobody's laughing.

    "Evidence held by the US Attorney is subject to the discovery process, which is governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Again, there's no basis for a NZ judge to believe that Dotcom would't have full access once the criminal phase begins."

    Have you forgotten that the FBI has specifically requested that the data that on MegaUpload's seized servers be deleted? The same data Dotcom's team want access to so they can prepare their defence? Does that sound like "full access" to you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  162.  
    identicon
    davnel, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    THe biggest problem I see is that the Monarchy has had it's power stripped from it by the Liberals to the point that it's little more than a figurehead. The answer is to restore it's power, expand the Privy Council and eliminate Parliament entirely (ie: take the UK back to the 12th century). This is, of course, a bloody ex-colonial Yank blowing off his mouth, but it sounds good.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  163.  
    icon
    martyburns (profile), Aug 17th, 2012 @ 4:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Owned. Good work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  164.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2012 @ 7:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I guess you missed the part where I said you ACs, referring specifically to ACs like yourself. Who pull out the righteous indignation card (calling soldiers cowards one moment and then saying I'm dishonoring them by pointing out that Vietnam wasn't actually a war, you know the kind that it takes Congress' approve to start, that kind of righteous indignation) and/or state things that kind of run counter to what they themselves are guilty of. Which is why I called you a hypocrite.

    I wasn't referring to myself because I'm not a hypocrite.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  165.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2012 @ 8:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    God you are slow.

    I simply pointed out that Australian soldiers were being mocked for cowardice. I attached a citation from the NZ Herald to back it up. I don't know why you equate the reporting of that fact with it automatically being my opinion.

    Your position on the Vietnasm issue is simply untenable. At issue was whether Australian conscripts had ever fought in a war. G Thompson trumpeted the claim that it had never happened. I pointed out that it happened in Vietnam. 15,000 of his conscripted countrymen fought; more than 200 died and 1500 were wounded. While you may win the semantics game, I believe that those conscripted soldiers believed that they were fighting a war at the behest of their country. Their courage and sacrifice was no less because it was an "undeclared" war. Their role ought not be diminished by you on a mere technicality. Interestingly, G Thompson hasn't returned to defend his claim. I'll be interested to see whether he returns to claim victory because conscripted soldiers from his country fought, bled and died in an "undeclared" war as opposed to the "real thing". I doubt that he will as he's not as desperate and pathetic as you are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  166.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Aug 17th, 2012 @ 11:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    While the likelihood of receiving a fair trial is germane to the extradition process, the US judiciary is regarded by people involved in law in the US as the most impartial, fair and accessible judiciary in the world. (Much of the rest of the world on the other hand regards them as almost as bought and paid for as the rest of the US government)
    There FTFY...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  167.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2012 @ 12:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    your understanding of the law is poor. Extradition *treaties* are negotiated bilaterally between countries, wth some multilateral exceptions such as teh European arrest warrant. The US has re-negotiated its extraditiontreaties in the wake of 9/11, but important differences remain. Are you even a law student?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  168.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2012 @ 7:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Go look at a bunch of extradition treaties side-by-side. You will discover the about 80% of the elements are the same. That was the point, douchebag.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  169.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 18th, 2012 @ 12:54am

    Re:

    if there was oil in NZ worth claiming, this would be the perfect pretext!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  170.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 18th, 2012 @ 1:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    *laughs* well, I'm from New Zealand, not the UK, which means the system's a Bit different.

    it's kind of astounding how many problems and abuses could have been avoided here simply by going with a Feudal model (which all the random weirdness actually would have fit into) rather than trying to be all modern and democratic... (even if the various feudal sub-entities had been required to be constitutional-whatevers in their own rights.)

    ... ... NZ is weird. heh.

    no, our problem here is that we had a few bad governors followed by actually having a parliament and the governors then abdicating all responsibility. while the monarchy's powers in Practice are fairly limited here, all the documentation actually leaves it open for them to, if they have enough personal power (which NO governor general has had, to my knowledge, though that has nothing to do with the post itself), actually run the place as an absolute monarchy in every way but the budget. requires a couple of cludges and work-arounds here and there, but still. (and all it would really take to get popular support for such a move would be for the current monarch/governor to Actually Say No (which they're SUPPOSED TO DO) when parliament attempts to make yet another dick move.)

    also: NZ's parliament only has one house. this would be FINE if the GG actually did their job, as a lot of the monarch's powers here are a lot of the various things an 'upper house' would normally do (the rest being the responsibility of parliament).

    the Westminster system isn't actually about the separation of powers at ALL, to our detriment, leading to Parliament having usurped, in practice if not in name, most of the power of the monarch these days.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  171.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Aug 18th, 2012 @ 2:12pm

    Re: interesting

    also a colossal waste of time and money on his part, but yes, definitely fun.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  172.  
    icon
    lolapgaston (profile), Aug 19th, 2012 @ 5:19am

    "As stated in many reports the US Government has broken many laws of New Zealand. If you are going to be fair, then the law breakers in New Zealand should be arrested and prosecuted! So Please arrest all the US Government employees that have violated your country's laws. If your country had people in the US breaking US laws, You would expect this to happen. Until the governments of the world start acting fairly and above board, it is WE THE PEOPLE that get hurt!" - Agreed!

    Lola P Gaston
    home gardening tips
    http://www.gordonwells.net

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  173.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 19th, 2012 @ 11:41am

    Re:

    I call shenanigans.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  174.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 19th, 2012 @ 12:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You sir, are a troll's troll. I applaud your perseverance, you are still a trolly little idiot though. Washed in the bright light of trollbaggery, all douchy clean and full of self righteous, jingoistic pride.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  175.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 19th, 2012 @ 12:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    douche bag

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  176.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 19th, 2012 @ 12:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    trolly litle asshat

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  177.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 19th, 2012 @ 12:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    you have now crossed a line, you used sanitary napkin you

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  178.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 19th, 2012 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    and this is one of the many reasons why, given half a chance, the collective world will slit the US of A's throat one fine day when their back is turned and their pantaloons are down

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  179.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2012 @ 10:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    oh we have gone to the ad hominem level now, have we? I think several people here, let alone the judges in NZ, know more about NZ law and extradition law than you do, and I sincerely hope you are not a law student, otherwise I'd fear for the profession.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  180.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2012 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    My you are a thin-skinned little sissy aren't you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  181.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Aug 20th, 2012 @ 11:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You fail at irony.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  182.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2012 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "US judiciary is regarded as the most impartial, fair and accessible judiciary in the world"

    It isn't, it really and truly isn't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  183.  
    identicon
    tracyanne, Aug 22nd, 2012 @ 6:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Koalas in NZ are in zoos. Like Kangaroos they are native to Australia.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This