SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AP reports that Ryan Pate, a helicopter mechanic, took to Facebook while in Florida after a dispute over sick leave with his company and when he returned to Abu Dhabi last month, he was told to report to the police station, where he was arrested for breaking a United Arab Emirates law on slandering his employer. Pate was shown screenshots of the Facebook message and told his employer had filed charges accusing him of breaking wide-ranging Emirates laws that ban slander. The laws were introduced in late 2012 and make it an offense to use the net to mock or deride organizations and individuals. Pate spent about 10 days in jail and is now free on bail awaiting a March 17 trial. His supporters say he faces up to five years in prison and a steep fine if convicted. "I just couldn't register it in my head because as an American growing up in the United States, the First Amendment right is just ingrained in my brain," says Pate. "I never even entertained the fact that I would wind up in prison out here for something I put on Facebook in the United States."
Pate's congressman, Rep. David Jolly, intervened on his constituent's behalf, lobbying the State Department and Emirates officials for help. In a letter to the Emirati attorney general, Jolly emphasized respect for the sovereignty of the country, but argued because the posts occurred while Pate was on American soil, those laws shouldn't apply. "It is deeply troubling that Mr. Pate now faces judicial proceedings over an action that was done legally in his home country," says Jolly. Speaking via phone from his apartment in Abu Dhabi, Pate was remorseful. “I just want to apologize to everybody I dragged into this,” he said. “It is embarrassing, and I never meant for this to happen. I let my emotions get the better of me.”
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday March 09 2015, @05:24PM
> "It is deeply troubling that Mr. Pate now faces judicial proceedings over an action that was done legally in his home country"
The list of examples where the US is on the opposite side of that statement would likely break SN's storage space...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2015, @05:29PM
Well, it's good if an American official says that. Because it can be quoted the next time the U.S. tries to extend the reach of its laws to another country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2015, @05:39PM
> The list of examples where the US is on the opposite side of that statement would likely break SN's storage space...
How about giving us a taste?
Remember, no extradition is going to fit that list because extradition treaties all require that the action be a crime in both states and even then if capital punishment is a possible sentence most countries won't extradite, some won't extradite as long as maximum possible punishment is way out of line with their local equivalent.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday March 09 2015, @06:05PM
How about drone bombings under the 2001 Military Authorization act? Those loosely fit the bill, and they kill people, and don't even grant a trial.
Technically the US asserts that this is a war against a non-state actor, but... I think most sane people would see it as extrajudicial judgement.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Zinho on Monday March 09 2015, @06:35PM
>> The list of examples where the US is on the opposite side of that statement would likely break SN's storage space...
>How about giving us a taste?
The case of Dmitry Sklyarov [wikipedia.org] stands out in my memory; situation seems exactly analogous. Programmer in Russia writes a program that is illegal in Russia, comes to the U.S., and is arrested for violation of U.S. law. No extradition needed, he was picked up when he came to speak at a professional conference in Las Vegas.
It took a while to convince the US. government that it was wrong, but eventually they came to the conclusion that they didn't have jurisdiction; the charges were dropped.
There are other, less clear-cut examples; notably, the arrest of Kim Dotcom. [wikipedia.org] In this case extradition was requested, and it's unclear to me whether Kim's actions were actually illegal in New Zealand where the crimes allegedly took place.
I don't have a full list for you at the tips of my fingers, but I'll agree that the U.S. government has acted far too aggressively in the interests of its corporations on many occasions. More than would make me comfortable if I weren't one if its citizens.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2015, @07:04PM
So, basically two counter-examples.
(1) As you said, Sklyarov was released.
(2) If Dotcom actually is extradited, then it will become an example, but until then his lack of extradition seems like proof to the contrary.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:24AM
You have an interesting definition of counter-example.
The examples we're looking for are cases where someone "faces judicial proceedings over an action that was done legally in his home country", and the U.S. is on the wrong side of Justice.
* The FBI arrested Skylarov, imprisoned him for over a month, and prevented him from returning home for another four months; this because he was listed as the author of a piece of software that was legal to write and sell in his home country. Over the following year he was required to testify in court hearings against his employer.
* The U.S. DOJ requested extradition of Kim Dotcom, as a result of which his home was raided and millions of dollars of his assets in New Zealand were seized and he was imprisoned. He spent the next two years and $10 million in court attempting to recover his assets and what was left of his good name.
In both of these cases judicial proceedings were faced due to alleged violation of U.S. law. Since their own governments weren't prosecuting them for going about their daily business at home I'm going to assume that their activities were legal in their home countries. I'd say they're actually both pretty good examples.
By the way, are you the same A.C. as originally asked for the examples? If you are, your position seems a bit inconsistent - "no extradition would qualify" conflicts with "If Dotcom actually is extradited, then it will become an example"...
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 3, Informative) by Fnord666 on Monday March 09 2015, @07:18PM
The case of Dmitry Sklyarov [wikipedia.org] stands out in my memory; situation seems exactly analogous. Programmer in Russia writes a program that is legal in Russia, comes to the U.S., and is arrested for violation of U.S. law. No extradition needed, he was picked up when he came to speak at a professional conference in Las Vegas.
FTFY
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday March 09 2015, @11:40PM
Oops, thanks!
*face turns red*
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2015, @07:26PM
Citation please that the charges were dropped, and that they concluded they didn't have jurisdiction? Otherwise what you are saying is misleading and false.
The last I checked was he was found not guilty because they did not wilfully infringe: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-978176.html [cnet.com]
Thus, the charges were not dropped and the US laws applied. He was just found not guilty and acquitted.
So in similar way UAE can and does claim their laws apply, whether the UAE courts find this guy guilty or not is a different matter.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Tuesday March 10 2015, @01:24AM
The EFF has a pretty good write-up [eff.org] on what went down.
TL;DR version:
On December 13, 2001 Skylarov was released from custody and allowed to return to Russia. [eff.org]
On December 16, 2002 the case against Skylarov's employer, Elcomsoft, ended with a "NOT GUILTY" verdict, [eff.org] and all charges against Skylarov were dropped.
You are correct that the issue of jurisdiction was not what I remembered. Apparently, Elcomsoft had servers located on American soil, so the issue of whether the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has extraterritorial application was moot and not ruled upon.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:55PM
Seems to me more like one of those bargains where charges are dropped on one culprit (Skylarov) in exchange for that culprits cooperation in getting another culprit (Elcomsoft). That's the prerogative of prosecutors[1]. Doesn't mean they didn't have jurisdiction.
So far from the links you gave it sure seems like the US law was applied and did apply, and charges were dropped on Skylarov not because of jurisdiction issues, but for other reasons (one of mentioned above).
And they continued with the prosecution of Elcomsoft- the US law had jurisdiction, US law was applied, the US court system was applied and Elcomsoft was fortunate enough to be found not guilty.
So similarly in this case, the UAE law can and does apply to the guy. Maybe he might get lucky and the charges will be dropped (for political, PR or other reasons).
[1] http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/09/5-reasons-prosecutors-drop-criminal-charges.html [findlaw.com]
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:37AM
Seems to me more like one of those bargains where charges are dropped on one culprit (Skylarov) in exchange for that culprits cooperation in getting another culprit (Elcomsoft). That's the prerogative of prosecutors[1]. Doesn't mean they didn't have jurisdiction.
Yes, I believe that's exactly what happened. And I was incorrect about the jurisdiction issue, as I admitted in my previous post.
. . . it sure seems like the US law was applied and did apply, and charges were dropped on Skylarov . . . So similarly in this case, the UAE law can and does apply to the guy.
It sounds like we agree that the cases are analogous. That being the case, it's reasonable to point out the hypocrisy of a U.S. government official publicly saying that the U.A.E. shouldn't have prosecuted in the current case; the pot is calling the kettle black. I believe that was the point all the way back at the beginning of this thread.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 3, Informative) by einar on Monday March 09 2015, @07:15PM
Swiss banks
Especially those not having any business in the US :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegelin_%26_Co. [soylentnews.org]. In Switzerland, bank secrecy protects the anonymity of your account. US citizens using this to hide money from their tax authority do not commit a crime in Switzerland. Neither does the bank. Yet, Swiss banks get the shaft in the US.
Remark1 : No, the bank secrecy is not just for foreigners to attract foreign money (E.g Germany keeps foreign accounts tax free and does not inform the country of origin of the account holder). It applies to everyone in Switzerland.
Remark2 : Rumor claims that the pot cooked over for Wegelin when one of the owner claimed that they recommend for the Brazilian state to look into the money of their citizens hidden on US bank accounts...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2015, @09:38PM
That's an interesting one, particularly since they plead guilty.
If there is one kind of organization you would think would have the resources to stand up for itself in court, its an international bank.
Especially one with assets on the order of 21 billion dollars.
(Score: 1) by pgc on Monday March 09 2015, @08:31PM
Assange.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday March 09 2015, @08:54PM
Doubtful, have you looked at the price per gigabyte and how much text you could fit on a single terrabyte drive? It's insane. For comparison, Wikipedia has approximately 4.7million articles in the English Wikipedia and articles (only text) uncompressed take up about 40GB of space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] Now, if we're talking about charts, that depends on how much storage soylent has. ;-) Though, again...Storage is Cheap.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 10 2015, @12:50AM
The U.S. being an asshole does not make it okay for everyone else to be assholes.
A) The U.S. should stop being an asshole.
B) Everyone else should, respectively, stop being assholes.
Stop assuming when we complain about one or the other, that's the only one we care about.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:20AM
A) The U.S. should stop being an asshole.
never gunna happen
B is therefore moot
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:01PM
Two wrongs on one side do not make a right on the other side.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!