aedan’s Techdirt Profile


About aedan

aedan’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 6th, 2012 @ 7:51am

    (untitled comment)

    Lets examine some of the extradition treaty, shall we?

    Extradition shall be granted only if the evidence be found sufficient, according to the laws of the place where the
    person sought shall be found, either to justify his committal for trial if the offense of which he is accused had been committed in that place or to prove that he is the person convicted by the courts of the requesting Party.

    Article iv tells us that the evidence to charge and/or convict must be sufficient. So DotCom is entitled to see the evidence the U.S. has against him, article iv is pretty clear on that.

    Neither of the Contracting Parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens under this Treaty, but the executive
    authority of each shall have the power to deliver them up, if, in its discretion, it be deemed proper to do so

    Article v is pretty clear in stating that New Zealand is not bound to extradite, unless they desire.

    ARTICLE X When the request relates to a person who has not yet been convicted, it must also be accompanied by a warrant of arrest issued by a judge or other judicial officer of the requesting Party and by such evidence as, according to the laws of the requested Party, would justify his arrest and committal for trial if the offense had been committed there, including evidence proving the person requested is the person to whom the warrant of arrest refers

    Article x specifically addresses people not yet convicted and that the evidence needs to justify the arrest. U.S. needs to provide the evidence.

    If the requested Party requires additional evidence or information to enable it to decide on the request for extradition, such evidence or information shall be submitted to it within such time as that Party shall require.
    If the person sought is under arrest and the additional evidence or information submitted as aforesaid is not sufficient or if such evidence or information is not received within the period specified by the requested Party, he shall be discharged from custody. However, such discharge shall not bar the requesting Party from submitting another request
    [*12] in respect of the same offense.

    Article xii clearly states that New Zealand has the right to request the evidence and to set a deadline for the evidence. If the evidence is not provided within that time, DotCom should be released.

    I also looked through Article ii which details the list of offenses for which extradition can be sought. I did not see an offense that makes any sense, using a common sense interpretation. That leads me to believe that this extradition is more of a political attack. Face it, recently we have dealt with MPAA, RIAA, SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA. All of these are political and this appears to be a political character assassination. So lets examine that part.

    ARTICLE VI Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:

    4. If the offense for which his extradition is requested is of a political character, or if he proves that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offense of a political character. If any question arises as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this paragraph, it shall be determined according to the laws of the requested Party.

    Article vi clearly states that if it is political in nature then New Zealand has a right to deny extradition as well.

    The articles that I presented here make a decidedly strong statement that DotCom should just be released and have his properties returned. Argue that if you wish, but at the very least he is entitled to see the evidence being used against him for both extradition and evidence for the charges he will face in the U.S.

    I highly encourage every single one of you to look up the treaty, familiarize yourself with it and your rights!!!!