On Monday, October 21, 2019, 08:12:07 PM PDT, Greg Newby <[email protected]> wrote: On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 06:51:31PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
>> Jim Bell's comment: >> (But first, note that the term "extraterritoriality" was commonly used in >> TWO senses in regards to Assange: First, perhaps the most common usage was >> the fact that Assange could stay in the Embassy as if it were a different >> country, not UK. That is NOT the sense I am most interested in, at least in >> part because nobody seemed to be substantially challenging that issue. The >> second usage, is the concept that a country can have criminal jurisdiction >> over acts committed in another nation. Put simply, can the US declare >> actions by a person outside the US, when there is no clear connection to the >> US? I very much doubt that, in this case. Below, you can see that I >> looked at some statutes, and did not find any specific reference to >> 'extraterritoriality' as part of the statutes which were then cited. This >> material includes points which included references to US court decisions >> which declared that unless a statute clearly claims 'extraterritoriality' >> over acts in other nations, it should be presumed to not apply. >> Did the US add any charges which DID have extraterritoriality references >> built into the statutes?) > >> It's frustrating that these news-item references aren't written to include >> issues such as extraterritoriality included. I will now do a time limited >> Google-search for 'Assange extraterritoriality' over the last months to find >> useful references. Nothing. Perhaps a law journal will have addressed this >> important matter. >> Let's not forget what I said on April 29, 2019: >Thanks for resending the analysis below. I spent a little time following up on >your searches, including looking at whether 'comity' is a pathway to valid >extratorritality. Like you, I came up with no basis in the USC, including, as >you cited, in the sections dealing with espionage. I noticed at least a couple decades ago that the word "comity" is pronounced dangerously close to "comedy". And with very similar meaning, as well. Months ago, I sent an email to a woman barrister on Assange's case my analysis, below. No answer, but I suppose I didn't expect one. >Commentary: >It is not in the interests of most commercial media outlets to highlight the >legal shortcomings of the US efforts to extradite Assange, any more than it is >to highlight the attacks on journalistic freedom, war on whistleblowers, etc. >But even non-mainstream coverage seems to ignore the key issue of >extraterritoriality. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. I don't think this >is a concept that occurs to most journalists. >From the 1973 movie, "The Paper Chase". >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zruWCuNmWV8 "You come in with a skull full of mush, and you leave thinking like a lawyer." I remember seeing this movie first in a theater, first-run. It really impressed me! It was at this time I decided...that I definitely DIDN'T WANT TO BECOME A LAWYER!!! Why? Because science and engineering don't cheat. Law sets up rules, but then the people doing it cheat. >Generations of Americans have grown up with the notion that the US is the >World's police force. The ubiquity of US enforcement - i.e., military might, >and many other mechanisms - is not questioned. It is celebrated. Sadly, yes. >My theory concerning the relentless pursuit of Assange is that the ultimate >court outcomes are not the main object. The main object is ongoing and very >public punishment, certainly including unending incarceration and >intimidation, for daring to air the US' dirty laundry.- Greg Well, I DEMAND they 'play by the rules', in the way they refused to do so in my case. Jim Bell > -----------------------------------------------jim bell > <[email protected]>To:CypherPunks > Apr 29 at 5:31 PM > From: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download > 15(B) to intentionally access a computer, without authorization and exceeding > authorized access, to obtain information from a department and agency of the > United States in furtherance of a criminal act in violation of the laws of > the United States, that is, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, > Sections 641, 793(c), and 793(e). (In violation of Title 18, United States > Code, Sections 371, 1030(a)(l), 1030(a)(2), 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii).) > > [end of partial quote] > There is a principle of American law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that a > Federal law is only supposed to be considered of "extraterritorial" > application (applies outside the boundaries of United States territory) if > the Congress specifically intended that application, and was signified by > including such language within the law > itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction > > "In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in > interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality" is > absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says otherwise." > > "US Supreme Court Continues to Limit Extraterritorial Application of US Laws > | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP > > > RJR Nabisco and the Runaway Canon > >From that: > "The Supreme Court threw out the lawsuit after invoking the presumption > against extraterritoriality. That canon of statutory interpretation instructs > judges to assume “that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent > appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the > United States.”[8] In applying the presumption in RJR Nabisco, however, a > majority of four Justices[9] rejected multiple indications that Congress > intended RICO’s private right of action to extend abroad[10] while raising > the bar on what Congress must do to make its extraterritorial expectations > clear.[11]" [end of quote] > > Understanding the presumption against extraterritoriality: > https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=bjil > > > > Very interesting: Some Observations on the Extradition of Julian > Assange > >From that:"THE RULE OF DUAL CRIMINALITY: Even if extradition is sought only > >under the computer intrusion indictment, it will still need to meet the test > >of dual criminality, found in Article 2, which provides that "An offense > >shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is > >based is punishable under the laws in both States." Although computer > >hacking is no doubt also a crime in the U.K., there is a further wrinkle of > >territoriality, because Assange's alleged offense was committed outside the > >United States. Another section of Article 2 provides:If the offense has been > >committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, extradition shall > >be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty if the laws in > >the Requested State provide for the punishment of such conduct committed > >outside its territory in similar circumstances. If the laws in the Requested > >State do not provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside of > >its territory in similar circumstances, the executive authority of the > >Requested State, in its discretion, may grant extradition provided that all > >other requirements of this Treaty are met." > Unlike the U.S., however, Britain apparently takes a strict view of > territorial jurisdiction. According to The New York Times, Britain has > already denied a U.S. extradition request for computer intrusion, on the > grounds that the offense was committed on British soil and would therefore > have to be tried in the U.K. > [end of quote] > > 18 U.S.C. 641 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality > reference. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641 > > 18 U.S.C. 793(c), nor the whole 793, does not appear to explicitly have an > extraterritoriality reference. 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting > or losing defense information > > > 18 U.S.C. 371 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality > reference. 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud > United States > > > > > 18 U.S.C. 1030 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality > reference. 18 U.S. Code § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection > with computers > > > Jim Bell > > | | | | US Supreme Court Continues to Limit Extraterritorial Application of US L... With 22 offices, more than 1,700 attorneys and 50-plus practice areas, Skadden advises businesses, financial ins... | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Some Observations on the Extradition of Julian Assange On April 11, the Ecuadorian government withdrew its grant of asylum to Julian Assange, who had spent almost seve... | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | | | | | | | RJR Nabisco and the Runaway Canon In last term’s RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community,[1] the U.S. Supreme Court held that the private remedy i... | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United ... | | |
