You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to US based companies
Correct. Very few US crimes are contingent on having US citizenship, and the one Assange is charged with is not one of them.
> You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to US based companies
“A loud minority on HN said something on a different issue that can be viewed as contrary to what you said on this issue” is an accurate response to most HN comments, but not a particularly meaningful one to any.
Making a law that declares a crime over people not under your jurisdiction that happened on territory not under your jurisdiction is a mockery of the idea of sovreignty. The US might be able to enforce their will anyway due to their might, but they shouldn't do so as this will just ensure that the second they lose their advantage in power they will be treated as poorly as they treated others
No, it's not.
It is exactly the idea of sovereignty; limitations beyond that of your practical power on the exercise of your authority would be contrary to the idea of sovereignty, and are typical of authorities which are not sovereign but instead bound by the dictate of a superior sovereign.
Virtually every nation on Earth not only recognizes this as an abstract rule, but in fact exercises such extraterritorial jurisdiction to some degree or another.
Moreover, conspiracy to commit another crime where some overt acts in the conspiracy or attempt did take place within the jurisdiction of the nation involved isn't even an unusual exercise of extraterritorial jursidiction.
Now, you might prefer the formation of a global sovereign over existing nation states that would limit extraterritoriality among them in ways in which it is not now and has not historically been limited among sovereign nations, but it is ludicrous to describe the status quo as contradictory to the idea of sovereignty.
That might be how you view it, but at this point you are using a different definition of sovereignty than the rest of the world.
Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia if you don't want just my take on it. We can get further sources if you need
>Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity[1]
The US is trying to interfere in the actions of other political bodies which is a direct violation of their sovreignty. I think this is a bad idea because the US can only pull this off due to current levels of power which are not garunteed to be maintained and then the next superpower won't have any reason to limit their behavior against the US.
There are many arguments against my belief that the US shouldn't do this, but claiming that forcing other groups to your will is an example of sovereignty is just making up your own definitions for existing terms
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
Edit: additionally this portion of your argument.
>...it is ludicrous to describe the status quo as contradictory to the idea of sovereign
The status quo is not tightly couple to the idea of sovreignty. The status quo could be the purest form of respect for sovereignty that has ever existed or the status quo could completely flaunt the idea, but just because the world _is_ a way currently does not mean it changes _how_ it could be
No, I'm using the same definition generally used in political science.
> Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia if you don't want just my take on it.
Wikipedia is sometimes a good way to find decent sources, but it's hardly an authority. But, in this case the quote supports my position, not yours (now, were the US not merely to prosecute the offense but to seize Assange against the will of the State in which he was present in order to do so, that would be a violation of the idea of sovereignty.
At this point we are just arguing over definitions and not the actual topic that started so I am bowing out before this becomes a flame war
I've seen it elsewhere on this site (I think from rayiner?).
It's plausible that it's actually used that way in some contexts (legal, maybe?), but I agree that's not what most people think of. The whole concept of "violation of sovereignty" would seem to rely on there being some limits to what countries can do to each other. If it's simply a matter of "what a country has the power to do" - otherwise sovereignty could not be violated, only demonstrated lacking.
It may well not be, but as a principle that is a bad idea.
What if Saudi Arabia decides you are illegally blaspheming, or the Chinese Communist Party decides you are undermining social stability with your views?
It should be relevant if a 'crime' was committed somewhere it is not criminalised. Not necessarily a get-out-of-jail-free card, but relevant.