The Hague act : https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...

Yes, we are partners in NATO.

edit: 18 yrs later, it strikes me as how pre-emptive this was.

You are going to get downvoted into oblivion once the American contingent of HN wakes up, but before that happens I wanted to say thank you very much for making this statement:

EU countries, especially Germany, France (I have less hope for Eastern-EU or Sweden) need to stop extraditions to US of A stat. Also these US terrorists dressed up as politicians need to be sanctioned (I understand this is a pipe dream) and prosecuted at the ICC (another pipe dream).

It is true. The US needs to start being sanctioned for its war crimes, its crimes against humanity, and its anti-democratic behaviour. The failure of the American people to reign in their heinous war machine needs to be brought back to them. It is feet-to-the-fire time.

As a US person myself, I don't really take issue with stopping extraditions because it would probably be a lot cheaper just to execute enemies abroad. Think how much money Putin has saved over the years. Now the whole Kashoggi mess shows how easy it is for this approach to backfire, so you certainly have to be careful.

> need to stop extraditions to US of A stat

Extradition from EU to US is never allowed if in the US the people extradited risk the death penalty.

There are discussions going about abolishing it entirely for states that support death penalty, regardless of the single case implications.

I suppose that's not very consoling when you're staring at 30, 60 or more than 100 years in prison. The US should not have power to extradite EU citizens for the same reasons we also don't extradite people to Belarus or China. It's a one sided deal as was illustrated in the case of recent killing of a UK teen by an US diplomat:

Extradition of U.S. Diplomat’s Wife Sought in U.K. Teen’s Death https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-11/extraditi...

also the way US treats its prison population and allows torture (enhanced interrogation) doesn't make it better than any other banana republic. It's in no way better than China. it just has more effective propaganda.

I share your sentiment about US disrespect of basic human rights when it's about law enforcement and incarceration, but treaties are treaties and many EU countries still suffer from decades of past diplomatic relationships based on balance of powers set 70 or more years ago

I'm from Italy, US cultural and military "colonization" (for lack of a better word) has been quite bad here

The US does extradite to China... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-crime/china-hai...

And the diplomat case is not proof of a one-sided extradition treaty; it's entirely separate from the issue of extradition. The diplomat's wife had diplomatic immunity, and therefore would have been immune to prosecution whether or not she remained in the UK. The UK had to change its laws to make criminal prosecution of her possible. Under US law, you cannot retroactively place someone under threat of criminal prosecution, so even though diplomatic immunity has been modified since then (and if the hit-and-run occurred today, she would be subject to criminal prosecution in the UK), the US probably could not legally extradite her.

The diplomat was not a diplomat, he was a American intelligence officer based at RAF Croughton. The letter of agreement between the Foreign Office and the US ambassador to Britain in August 1995 about the American personnel at RAF Croughton says explicitly that diplomatic immunity for people like Mr Sacoolas would not apply for "acts performed outside the course of their duties".

The US has acted dishonourably in this case.

No, the US acted within the parameters of the 1995 agreement.

The agreement provided traditional diplomatic immunity[1] to personnel stationed at the base and their families but only waived criminal immunity for personnel for acts outside of the course of their duties. This waiver didn't extend to their families, because not being personnel, all of their acts would be outside the course of their duties and it would render their immunity meaningless.

This year, they changed that immunity so it no longer applies to family members, meaning they no longer have immunity. It was not made retroactive because the US would not agree to that (ex post facto criminalization is allowed in the UK).

[1] Diplomats usually refer to this type of immunity as "special immunity" because it is not related to the performance of diplomatic functions.

The UK isn't in the EU

correct but depending on which EU country he might not even be in EU but already extradited by now. (can you picture him in Poland, Spain or Sweden? they'd have him handed over long ago)

No, I can't

I've never understood this theory that it will be easier for the US to extradite him from Sweden, especially as they would be unable to extradite him to the US for anything without agreement from both Sweden and the UK.

He lost all support from me when he refused to go to Sweden.

I know

I think Assange move to relocate himself to UK was very unfortunate for him

He didn't consider Brexit was going to happen

I've heard the US has what essentially amount to a DRM on a lot of EU military equipment. Most of the west just seems really tangled up in general.

Sounds like a legitimate grievance if they're going out and recruiting people to steal secrets. In fact if they can prove a money link, they just look like a branch of the FSB.

for anyone who disagrees with US policy and considers it hostile, abusive, hypocritical (and hence a threat to their own values) ... their view could be: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And so it doesn't matter where the money comes from as long as they work on the same goal (e.g. stopping the war mongering hypocrisy that is US foreign policy). The current (dire) state of Russia after all is a failure in US foreign policy (the biggest tragedy and a massive lost opportunity in how the US handled the crumbling USSR).

In Europe we have a refugee-crisis and constant debates about what to do with them. In that debate we forget that it was the US that invaded Iraq, Lybia - they are responsible for it. Sure the Wagner group is there now as well profiting the same way as US contractors. But Africom, Blackwater and every yank in a uniform are a much larger threat to peace than Russia & China combined. (regardless what nutter occupies the whitehouse)

I blame Libya on Europe, but the point still stands.

Europe is far from blameless in any of this. Frontex and their deal with Turkey and everything surrounding the management of the crisis is absolutely infuriating. "We" are as bad as the US for not making a stand and even enabling them.

When is Europe going to finally recognize it has agency? Blaming the US for waves vaguely things while being mostly stagnant for decades isn't a good look, especially when you've been either an active participant or wholly complicit in those things.

I have commented this here earlier this week : the EU is a trade-bloc, the rest is posturing.

I hope EU stays a trade-bloc and everyone else considers de-escalating. I also don't trust the EU with too much power. the solution (imho) has to be peaceful - not forcing parties to spend more on defense and grandstanding.

Now that the UK is not throwing spanners into the works every time the subject comes up, we can expect a Federal Europe to appear much quicker.

UK has always been a voice of reason throughout the years which gave a good balance to the Franco-German domination. The spanners seem to have many times been a blessing in disguise. (I'm pro European).

You make it appear as if that would be a good thing. I disagree.

Which thing are you saying is good, the Uk stopping a federal europe or the creation of the same?

Ahhh, yes, very fair. I disagree with the notion that a federal Europe would be a good thing.

Human language, still a challenge after all these years.

As a UK citizen, I agree with you (a Federal Europe would be a bad thing).

As a resident of Germany, I disagree with you (a Federal Europe would be a good thing).

Perspective matters.

Libya has an elected government that is recognized by UN. The coup attempt by Hafter is supported by France, Russia, UAE, and Egypt. Rule of (international) law is broken by these countries blatantly.

Let's not place UN recognition on too high of a pedestal. See also Taiwan.

I second this, and specifically France started it.

personal attacks aside ... don't take _my_ word for it, ask people with skin in the game:

Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ

> On September 27, 2018, Yale's Program in Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies, and the Poynter Fellowship for Journalism hosted Vladimir Pozner, the acclaimed Russian-American journalist and broadcaster. Pozner spoke on the impact of US foreign policy towards Russia after the Soviet Union has been disbanded, and shared his opinions on a range of issues raised by the audience, from the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections, to Skripal poisoning, to the state of independent media in Russia and the US.

Vladimir Pozner Jr.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Pozner_Jr.

personal attacks aside ... My claim is based on what nuclear defense experts have been warning for many years: US nuclear strategy is entirely based on a pre-emptive surprise strike:

How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze: https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...

anyone who thinks current (even combined) Chinese / Russian military capability would stand a chance against US power in a kinetic war is deluding themselves. (List of United States military bases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military...)

How on earth do minor effective yield updates from burst timing tweaks indicate that US nuclear strategy is "entirely based on a pre-emptive surprise strike"?

Anything involving nukes could be framed as "undermining strategic stability." Even disarming them.

Also: the doomsday clock group has a credibility problem from their metaphor holding them accountable for prior alarmism.

The target will not see it as a "friendly attack with only a low-yield device" (and the US can't count on a measured response). If my country gets nuked what would justify my _trust_ that the next attack won't be a big one?

> "Hey all you nuclear powers out there. We’re just going to trust that you recognize this is “just a little nuclear weapon” and won’t retaliate with all you’ve got. Remember! The US only intends to nuke you “a little bit.”" -- https://twitter.com/mhanham/status/1089648491616448514

It doesn't matter the yield when the target is also a nuclear power - it was still the first strike and the correct response would be escalating (in case your adversary is many times stronger your only move would be to inflict max damage on your enemy in as little time as possible - you might not have much, or risk losing it all - that means very high chance of nuclear escalation).

edit:

for those interested, some further reading on why this is a problem:

The Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons: New Doctrine Falls Short of Bush Pledge https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005-09/features/role-us-nuc...

THE NEW U.S. DOCTRINE OF PREEMPTIVE WARFARE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR NUCLEAR DETERRENCE AND DISARMAMENT (pdf) https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&conte...

In your own words:

> It doesn't matter the yield

So I ask again: how do these small yield tweaks indicate that US nuclear strategy is "entirely based on a pre-emptive surprise strike"?

from the linked article (see below)

see also parent comment where there are 2 more links under "edit: ..." that support the argument that new fuze capability means higher risk of US using it preemptively. I agree with you that preemptive strikes aren't the only options, but all the research I've seen since the Bush era point to that scenario being _very_ likely (and thanks to fuze capability even more likely than unlikely. why wouldn't they use it especially during a preemptive strike. this way they get to say "look it was only a small nuke!")

from the article:

> Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to be minor, policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed its revolutionary impact on military capabilities and its important implications for global security.

...

> This vast increase in US nuclear targeting capability, which has largely been concealed from the general public, has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear strategy and intentions.

...

> Russian planners will almost surely see the advance in fuzing capability as empowering an increasingly feasible US preemptive nuclear strike capability—a capability that would require Russia to undertake countermeasures that would further increase the already dangerously high readiness of Russian nuclear forces. Tense nuclear postures based on worst-case planning assumptions already pose the possibility of a nuclear response to false warning of attack. The new kill capability created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used in response to early warning of an attack—even when an attack has not occurred.

The increased capability of the US submarine force will likely be seen as even more threatening because Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack.

Would you argue that if a hostile foreign power hired mercenaries that US soldiers shouldn't shoot to kill?

You arrest and capture spies. Here he has become a contractual spy.

Whistleblowing is not stealing (literally, in the legal sense, you’d have to prove it’s not whistleblowing in order for it to be possible to be stealing).

Jumping straight to a phrase like “stealing secrets” completely skips past due process to determine if it’s whistleblowing and presumes guilt instead of innocence.

If you're paying other people to turn, and hack to achieve access, that's not whistleblowing.

Yes, in fact, it absolutely can be. It completely depends on the criminality of the information obtained.

Nonsense. Stealing is stealing regardless of whether a crime is discovered in the stolen content. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Nonsense. The law is extremely complex on these points and you’re trying to play semantic games with the terms “theft” and “stealing” to pretend like it’s black and white.

Taking evidence due to a statutory duty to your government (reporting crimes) is not theft. You can’t just magically invoke the term “theft” and invoke tautologies like “stealing is stealing” - that’s not how any of this works.

It literally does depend on whether the taken documents reveal a crime, along with other factors about how your job or normal access would bring you in contact with the materials and also if the materials taken are over broad (i.e. you wanted documents to show a pattern of sexual harassment but also took a bunch of unrelated private client data).

https://www.whistleblowerllc.com/you-call-it-theft-i-call-it...

Given that in the case of Manning & Wikileaks, the crimes being reported (which were proven beyond all doubt) included criminal murder perpetrated systematically by US military and federal agents, as well as grand scale deception and rigging of the Democratic Primary in 2016, and shitloads of illegal torture and illegal imprisonment across Europe, the Middle East and Guantanamo, it’s also beyond dispute that the moral duty (and statutory duty for Americans involved like Manning) to release the materials was undeniable and the crimes were so sweeping and severe that no part of the taking or publishing of the documents can be considered over broad.

Taking evidence of a crime that you have legal access to is not a crime. Breaking into someone's house and taking evidence of financial fraud is still stealing. It's not complicated. Recruiting people to steal, i.e. hack into information stores they do not presently have access to, is being an accessory.

Nonsense. For example, making copies and exfiltrating classified documents from the government office where you work is an example of illegal theft (and other crimes).

Except not if the taken documents reveal criminal behavior that you have a higher statutory duty to report.

You are just creating a lazy false dichotomy between situations that are black and white, but you’re just talking into the wind and your point is still straight up wrong from a legal standpoint.

Whistleblowing is not stealing - literally, in the legal sense. Actions which might be illegal if they don’t result in the revelation of a greater crime can become literally legal actions if they are performed due to a higher statutory obligation to blow the whistle.

>For example, making copies and exfiltrating classified documents from the government office

It depends on what you do with them. If your copy is in service to whistleblowing to the proper authorities, then it is not illegal. If you are dumping them on wikileaks, its still illegal even if the act is revealing illegal acts.

>Actions which might be illegal if they don’t result in the revelation of a greater crime can become literally legal actions if they are performed due to a higher statutory obligation to blow the whistle.

Yes, for people who have legitimate access to the information to begin with. Show me a single case where someone performed an illegal act to access information that happened to reveal criminal acts, and show me how whistleblower protection laws absolved the initial illegal access. This is different than the crime revealed being comparatively so egregious that no one had any interest in prosecuting the individual for the initial illegal act.

Even if true, why would it not be?

Caa you steal a secret if that secret is illegal?

yes, however saying "learn (a secret)" is more precise

Appelbaum became also famous for sexually harassing women.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/07/27...

https://www.wired.com/2016/06/tor-developer-jacob-appelbaum-...

> for sexually harassing women.

You have to differentiate between claims made against him and what he did in reality.

Most of those claims seem to be fabricated and/or were even redacted by the sources, see:

https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2016-08/jacob-appelbaum-rape-sexu...