Russian arrested in Italy for violating U.S. worldwide sanctions

Doesn't matter. By treaty and agreements, the US and other countries can charge their own citizens and others for violations of law.

 

You seem to be trying to mix two issues together.
If you want to talk about the U.S. claiming jurisdiction over U.S. citizens in other countries, that is a big issue which we could debate. (and probably worthy of its own separate thread discussion)

But in this story we are talking about the U.S. claiming jurisdiction over citizens of foreign countries, in other countries that are not the U.S.
(the persons are not U.S. citizens and the alleged crime did not happen on U.S. territory, nor even was directly committed against any U.S. citizens, and the arrest did not even take place in the U.S.)

 

I am OK with the execution of duly ratified treaties and agreements.

 

Any by the way, are you okay with Mexico being able to automatically have any Americans extradited to Mexico, even though those Americans had never even been in Mexico before?

Maybe the only evidence they have are some computer records gathered from the internet.

 

Yes, so long as treaty terms are met.
International Extradition: A Guide to U.S. and ...

Arnold & Porter
https://www.arnoldporter.com › publications › 2020/11


Nov 10, 2020 — Extradition treaties are intended to operate like contracts and obligate the parties to arrest and surrender a person to a foreign treaty ...

 

You realize this could make it very difficult for an individual to keep track of all the laws that might possibly be applicable in a country they are visiting. That means if you visit a country, you could be arrested under any of the laws of all of the other countries that country has an extradition agreement with.

Even if the alleged "crime" never took place in that country, or even the country that is seeking to have you extradited.

You can't see any problem with this?

Some of these laws may be for things that are not obviously wrong, which not all governments agree are wrong and should be illegal.

 

Nope.

 

It seems to me you are being obtuse.

Or maybe you can't understand what the actual issues are.

One more possibility is you could just be more of a totalitarian and believe in a "world system" where any government has a right over any individuals. But I suspect that is not the case.

I'm more Conservative Libertarian-leaning, believe in national sovereignty, and do not believe any government anywhere in the world should have the right to enforce arbitrary laws over any other individual anywhere else in the world.

 

Nope. I just understand how the system works, having lived outside the US for 18 years. There is no problem.

 

There is "no problem" because you personally haven't been thrown into prison and sent against your will to another foreign country you have never been to before, for a "crime" you did not even know was a crime where you were.

(It wasn't against the law in any of the places you had actually been to)

 

The system is as fair as is humanly possible.

 

No, it's not.

You don't seem to be trying very hard to be able to see the issue here.

 

There's no issue.

 

Extraterritorial jurisdiction is wrong for the same reason that I do not have the right to go to Mexico and arrest some police officer there.

If governments can claim "extraterritorial jurisdiction", so could individuals or non-government groups.

 

Nope. Only governments can do that.

 

I don't see why.

If the U.S. can come up with some law and enforce it against a Russian citizen who was never even in the U.S., why can't I enforce my own will and jurisdiction over a U.S. citizen?
Why can't a country like Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran do it?

 

Because that's the law, by treaty and agreement.

 

It's a very indirect sort of "law".

Can you agree with me, for the sake of hypothetical argument, that you should not be obligated to follow all the laws of Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran (with the exception of the time you may actually be in these countries) ?

I will assume that you will agree with me on that point.
And that then means that you would propose people be punished for things that were not actually against the law in any of the countries they were in (or are citizens of).
In other words, people being punished "under the law" for things that were not against the law.

 

No, it is not. Please review the link in #30.

 

That is not the issue.

The issue is that the individual should not be subjected to these laws, in certain sorts of situations.

I am thinking of what the rights of the individual should be.

The U.S. trying to impose worldwide sanctions on Russia and Venezuela is similar to an act of world war.

If Russia and Venezuela acted the same way, then they might seek the arrest and prosecution of any persons involved in the enforcement of this U.S. law.
So if those U.S. government officials travelled to another country in the world, they could be arrested. Enforcement of certain U.S. laws could be a violation of the laws of other countries and be criminal.

Maybe Russia will declare that it's illegal for other countries to buy Ukrainian wheat, and many U.S. and European businessmen may be at risk for arrest if they travel to certain countries that have extradition agreements with Russia.

 

Bring it on.

 

Like I said, this is like a world-wide war, albeit a "legal war".

I fear this might escalate and other countries could conduct kidnappings of U.S. citizens involved in anything that other country doesn't like.
Like a worldwide form of terrorism, except with courts.

It's also a reason why personal privacy, including internet privacy, is going to be increasingly important in the modern age.

Remember, in the case of Julian Assange, the U.S. sought his extradition just for information exchanged through the internet.

 

Meh.

 

It's terrorism.
The only difference is giving someone a trial and throwing them in prison for a long time instead of just killing them.

You ignorantly and naively think YOU don't need to worry about this.
After all, you aren't personally involved in international trade. But there are plenty of other issues that could fall under extraterritorial jurisdiction, too many to count.
For example, it's illegal in many countries to say something disrespectful about the Muslim prophet Muhammed or something blasphemous against Allah. You might make some comment on Twitter or Facebook. Better hope these other countries don't find out about it.

Or Russia has made it illegal to post "misinformation" about the Ukrainian conflict.

One U.S. state made it a crime to post public information about how to perform abortions.

The list could go on and on.

 

I am unconcerned.