Dotcom judge quits the case
nzherald.co.nz
nzherald.co.nz
A better translation of TPB here: Aftermath of The Pirate Bay Trial: Peter Sunde’s Plea – In His Own Words - Falkvinge on Infopolicy. http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/06/aftermath-of-the-pirate-bay-...
He was quoting a pogo comic:
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Pogo_-_Earth_D...
Not "We have met the enemy and he is U.S."
(Redirect to Wiki, since apostrophes in URLs don't work).
I figure out a way to shield a bomb from scanners and then mail a bomb to a hospital in the states. I kill hundreds. Would it not be reasonable for treaties to come in here?
When it comes to citizens of other countries just temporary residing in Ruritania, it may be more appropriate (cheaper, "not our problem") to just send them back, guilty or not, to be decided by a justice system in their own country. Preferably, after evaluating if there is a reasonable expectation of a fair trial.
Releasing them to some third party (in this case, a German citizen to US authorities) sounds absolutely awful to me. Barbaric from the perspective of the person being sent away, and servile from the perspective of sovereign people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Double...
You're blaming a state for doing something you're own state would gladly do itself if it were able to (if it had the same platform).
If America lost the war of independence, then that wiki article would be called "British exceptionalism". And in another history, "Russian exceptionalism", or "Chineese exceptionalism", etc.
The country level game has always been about competition rather than sharing... Where the benefits are imported, and pain is exported. It all comes down to human nature.
So basically "it's all right because they'd do the same" simply doesn't cut it.
Do you like the big house you live in, electricity 24h/day, the plethora of food you can buy, the nice cars you drive, the crime-free white areas you can live in (or move into), having access and freedom to discuss issues such as this?
It all came out from competition, not personal niceness.
Not only that, but your "fairness" attitude is a product of all this. Without which you're life, and ideas about who you are, would be drastically different.
The rest of the world is a bad place (http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-...), and everyone is in competition... Some people compete by being nice, others by accumulating wealth, some choose to impose their wills on others, etc. It's all the same, ego.
If you're interested, you don't have to go far in Buddhism to discover that all action is egotistical.
If you want to be truly fair, then drop out of this game called society; stop doing, and start being with silence and compassion.
Darwinism made us reach here as a species, it doesn't mean we have to consciously apply it.
Thing is, we can afford to be fair. The argument that you have to make your ends and means coincide is simplistic.
Though it never quite works out the way you want it to...
Something about one bad (corrupt, not fair) apple spoiling the rest!
It's just an example, but the point is, human nature seems to always mess it up in the end for the fairness crowds. They just don't seem to be the right product/market fit for humans and their societies.
> Thing is, we can afford to be fair.
Yes you can! All thanks to the competition system that allows you to do so.
> It doesn't matter.
You can't separate the lives and actions of an individual and the society he/she is part of... They are related and integrated (for the most part). For the well-adjusted individuals, to the contrarians, the corrupt, the fair, and even for the rejects.
Ron Paul also supports lesser intervention abroad, and he's far from a marxist.
I believe that jurisdiction matters, and where a crime is committed is jurisdiction.
I don't understand the jurisdiction grounds that Ruritaria would have on crimes committed in other countries.
If I were Poronian and a Ruritarian bombed my country and his government shielded him from Poronian justice -- I would call on my government to get his head. He gets tried in Poronian courts or he gets tried by Poronian missiles. But you don't get to commit a crime in Poronia and avoid the legal repercussions...
wherever it happened, committing an act of murder is illegal.
Yes, encouraging your country to invade another country because one of their citizens committed a crime is always an option.
Not talking about MU or anyone/anything else in particular, but...
If you run a criminal enterprise that does the majority of its business in the US, and you live overseas you can (and should be) subjugated to US laws.
Even for non-criminal enterprises, you don't get to play around with another country, breaking its laws. Why should a criminal enterprise be treated differently?
>Even for non-criminal enterprises, you don't get to play around with another country, breaking its laws. Why should a criminal enterprise be treated differently?
Yes, I'm sure a lot of Iraqis would love to see American soldiers who killed/tortured their civilians judged in their own country. I have a feeling that you might change your tune on this one though... ;)
By doing it on the internet, they are "exposing" themselves to millions of people where that is illegal, and therefore should be extradited for it.
Even the passport photo of millions of American women is illegal in certain countries... seeings that's an international document, surely they've broken the law in those countries, no?
Really, I don't. Even if you ignore that some countries have extradition treaties which spell out exactly at what level this can happen (btw, US and Iran don't).
But if you love analogies, I'm sure I can come up with one even more ridiculous, that would show my case.
We're all breaking the laws of countries we're not in this very second.
Maybe before the internet it was easier and made more sense. Now it's completely insane.
You have to be careful when you are a judge, you're human so you probably have a bias, but you need to keep it a secret.
Judges who make explicit statements that indicate they cannot be impartial in a case currently before them but who do not remove themselves from such cases usually find themselves disrobed and disbarred for violating their ethical duties of impartiality. (UK standards are different from US standards, but the duty of impartiality is generally the same.)
Saying that the US is "the enemy" is pretty much as close as you can get to revealing an inability to be impartial.
Are in fact allowed to not just voice an opinion, but to actually be activists and or paid lobbyist for the copyright industry, and still preside over copyright related cases.
This is a one way street, and the judge has accurately formulated why many think this is the case. We have met the enemy of our freedom and our judicial system.
The "pro-copyright" judges are not biased--they are simpy following the law, which currently holds that copyrights are legal and provides (some draconian) mechanisms for enforcing copyrights. If there are problems, it is not the judges--it is the law.
In the U.S., at least, judges are not allowed to be publicly politically active (except to the extent of their own campaigns for judicial office), or to lobby for political causes at all, though they are allowed to maintain private political views. No copyright lobbyist is a judge, though a few former judges may be copyright lobbyists.
This is not a one way street. The enemy of freedom is not the judicial system; quite often, the judiciary is the primary defender of your freedoms.
Last I heard there was not going to be a need for an extradition hearing as Mr Dotcom was volunteering to go to the US and stand trial as he was certain he would be found not guilty in a courtroom.
Not quite. Dotcom has offered to voluntarily fly to the US in return for them releasing a portion of his funds so he can mount a defence.
The likelyhood that the US will accept his deal is close to 0.
This judge said "The US is the enemy" while presiding over a case in which the U.S. was the primary opposing litigant. A statement that strongly worded strongly suggests he would not be able to impartially judge the remaining proceedings. Consequently, the instant he made that statement, he was ethically obligated to stand down. In some jurisdictions, not standing down would result in disrobement and potentially disbarrment.
Indeed, in most jurisdictions with these rules, judicial decisions can be struck down for a judge's refusal to stand down after making such statements. The one exception is SCOTUS, because its decisions are not subject to further review except by SCOTUS itself.