Extradition To Usa From Thailand

[Richard W]

For what offences can a foreigner be extradited to the USA from Thailand even if he's never been to the USA? Do the offences have to be morally wrong?

For example, could he be extradited for analysing intercepted US government communications for his own government? Could he be extradited for selecting targets in the US for his own country's nuclear warheads? (The latter might be construed as conspiring to kill US citizens.)

[Shotime]

You may have just committed one.

[bonobo]

Some international legal expert may know better, but I think what matters is the country where the person is located.

The US signed a warrant for Osama bin Laden after 911, but Afghanistan refused to honor the extradiction. Thailand arrested several people and sent them to the US for terrorism-related charges. Canada regularly extradites accused criminals to the US--but they will not extradite people who could face the death penalty.

[GuestHouse]

Breaking certain 'important' federal laws: Killing a US Citzen and counterfeiting US Currency are examples, I think tampering with the smoke detector in an aircraft toilet might be another

But as Bonobo states, subject to treaty.

[Scott]

I suggest you head back to the country you were spying for, they usually protect you.

I am interested in how this is related to Thailand? (Not suggesting that it isn't, but sure would like to know how).

[cathyy]

The US is uniquely stupid among nations in that it seems to think it can enforce its laws when violated by non-citizens, even when the violation took place outside the US. Copyright laws are a good example of this, as evidenced by the attempts of US entities to sue Jon Johansen (DVD Jon) and the operators of Pirate Bay for violation of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Remember the Russian programer who was arrested for a DMCA violation when he came to the US to give a presentation at a security conference about how he had hacked an (utterly simple to crack) Adobe DRM technique.

The upshot is to reside in/be a citizen of a nation that will resist such asinine prosecution efforts.

[britmaveric]

British lad hacked into yank govt computers from his home in UK looking for ufo info. Any rate believe he is or was extradited to USA.

[LooseCannon]

The US signed a warrant for Osama bin Laden after 911, but Afghanistan refused to honor the extradiction.

They had absolutely no requirement to honour anything.

The US government did not recognise the Taliban government of Afghanistan, there was no diplomatic relationship & there was no extradition treaty (and there still is no treaty).

But what we did have was 2 ignorant, arrogant & 'medieval' governments, both with an agenda that was diametrically opposed to the other. The perfect recipe for death & destruction.

To the OP - for some people no offence needs to have been committed, no need for the inconvenience of evidence or proof, just a silent kidnapping & whisking off to Quantamo Bay.

Quaintly called 'rendition' to make it sound like a relaxing holiday on a Pattaya beach where you can indulge in such activities as waterboarding.

[ronz28]

This guy may be interested in the answer to the OP's question: http://www.newsweek.com/id/175679

A U.S.-trained Al Qaeda microbiologist has been released from jail by the Malaysian government, prompting alarm among American counterterrorism officials.

"This individual is considered dangerous," said one official, referring to the recent decision to free Yazid Sufaat, a notorious Qaeda operative who once oversaw the group's germ-warfare efforts. The official declined to be identified talking about sensitive information......

[MyphuketLife]

The US is uniquely stupid among nations in that it seems to think it can enforce its laws when violated by non-citizens, even when the violation took place outside the US. Copyright laws are a good example of this, as evidenced by the attempts of US entities to sue Jon Johansen (DVD Jon) and the operators of Pirate Bay for violation of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Remember the Russian programer who was arrested for a DMCA violation when he came to the US to give a presentation at a security conference about how he had hacked an (utterly simple to crack) Adobe DRM technique.

The upshot is to reside in/be a citizen of a nation that will resist such asinine prosecution efforts.

I have to agree with you, as a US citizen myself I never understood why we try to act like world police.... If a non-us citizen breaks a US law but out side of the US, we have no right what so ever trying to hold them accountable. Now if a non-us citizen breaks a US law on US soil, by all means we can punish them...

If we set a law for our citizens, it does not mean the rest of the world had to follow that law, it think its a shame and its a core reason the world view of the US is in a rapid decline.

Edited December 19, 2008 by MyphuketLife

[PhilHarries]

The US is uniquely stupid among nations in that it seems to think it can enforce its laws when violated by non-citizens, even when the violation took place outside the US. Copyright laws are a good example of this, as evidenced by the attempts of US entities to sue Jon Johansen (DVD Jon) and the operators of Pirate Bay for violation of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Remember the Russian programer who was arrested for a DMCA violation when he came to the US to give a presentation at a security conference about how he had hacked an (utterly simple to crack) Adobe DRM technique.

The upshot is to reside in/be a citizen of a nation that will resist such asinine prosecution efforts.

I have to agree with you, as a US citizen myself I never understood why we try to act like world police.... If a non-us citizen breaks a US law but out side of the US, we have no right what so ever trying to hold them accountable. Now if a non-us citizen breaks a US law on US soil, by all means we can punish them...

If we set a law for our citizens, it does not mean the rest of the world had to follow that law, it think its a shame and its a core reason the world view of the US is in a rapid decline.

Especially when there is a much easier way to sort out your little interpersonal problems. Like sending a hired assassin over to liquidate the irritant like those super friendly Russian people do. Saves all that messing around with international regulations, treaties and laws and keeps money out of the lawyers pockets.

[bonobo]

The US signed a warrant for Osama bin Laden after 911, but Afghanistan refused to honor the extradiction.

They had absolutely no requirement to honour anything.

The US government did not recognise the Taliban government of Afghanistan, there was no diplomatic relationship & there was no extradition treaty (and there still is no treaty).

Of course they had no requirement to honor anything. They were a sovereign nation and could extradite someone or not.

When they did not, the US acted against a country from where an attack was made on US soil, killing thousands of US and other citizens.

That was their choice. It was not as if the US government did not tell them what would happen if they didn't. But if they had turned over bin Laden, then the Taliban would still be in power today. So I guess you would have to ask them if it was worth it or not to thumb their nose at the US request for extradition.

[bonobo]

The US is uniquely stupid among nations in that it seems to think it can enforce its laws when violated by non-citizens, even when the violation took place outside the US. Copyright laws are a good example of this, as evidenced by the attempts of US entities to sue Jon Johansen (DVD Jon) and the operators of Pirate Bay for violation of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Remember the Russian programer who was arrested for a DMCA violation when he came to the US to give a presentation at a security conference about how he had hacked an (utterly simple to crack) Adobe DRM technique.

The upshot is to reside in/be a citizen of a nation that will resist such asinine prosecution efforts.

I won't even get into the "uniquely stupid" statement as nations aroudn the world have taken it upon themselves to take action against other citizens (Salmon Rushdie or Georgi Markov, anyone?).

But unless my mind is completely fried, Jon Johansen was in fact put on trial in Norway, not the US, for DeCCS.

[Maizefarmer]

For what offences can a foreigner be extradited to the USA from Thailand even if he's never been to the USA? Do the offences have to be morally wrong?

For example, could he be extradited for analysing intercepted US government communications for his own government? Could he be extradited for selecting targets in the US for his own country's nuclear warheads? (The latter might be construed as conspiring to kill US citizens.)

It called "RICO" - Uncle Sam will extradite you from anywhere with RICO if he wants to .... actually never mind RICO - it what he uses a lot of the time, but he'll extradite you if he wants you!!

RICO is an all encompasing piece of US criminal legislation - for the benefit of those who don't know what it is: "conspiracy" - to do what? Anything alledged!

[Kerryd]

We've had two excellent cases of this (involving Thailand) this year alone.

Victor Bout, a Russian, is still being held without bail in a Bangkok prison, while the courts try to determine whether he should, could or will be extradited to the US (to face charges of conspiring to kill Americans, after the DEA lured him to Thailand under the false pretence of wanting to buy missiles from him and ship them to Colombian rebels).

An attempt to forcibly (and illegally) put him on a plane bound for the US failed, and now he waits to see if Thailand will honour the US's extradition request.

More recently, the Canadian, living in Thailand, arrested in England and (immediately it seems) extradited to the US, to face charges of:

conspiracy to engage in sex tourism,

two counts of aiding and abetting sex tourism, and

(numerous pedophilia charges)

I agree that the scum should be arrested, charged, jailed, etc, but found it odd that he wasn't arrested and sent to Canada, or even back to Thailand. Instead he is arrested on American charges and being sent to the US.

There was also the case of a Syrian arms dealer that was arrested in Spain (at the request of the US) and extradited to the states, for much the same charges as Victor Bout. It took them awhile (almost a year after his arrest), but they finally got him to the US.

There are also laws on the American books, that allow Americans to file suit against foreign nationals that do business with countries the Americans don't like. For example, a large (Canadian) mining company doing business with Cuba. Some Cuban exiles claim the company is operating on land that used to belong to them and file a lawsuit (in an American court of course).

A (Canadian) executive of the company flies to New York for a conference and is arrested (my understanding is that he was quietly released and the suit seemed to have quietly faded away as well. I think some very high priced lawyers may have mentioned that if other countries enacted similar laws, it wouldn't work out to well for a lot of American businesses).

It is interesting how some countries do seem to think that their laws should apply internationally,and they should have the right to arrest people from other countries, anywhere in the world, for breaking those laws.

Wonder how loud they'll scream if the shoe was on the other foot though ?

[MyphuketLife]

<snip>

More recently, the Canadian, living in Thailand, arrested in England and (immediately it seems) extradited to the US, to face charges of:

conspiracy to engage in sex tourism,

two counts of aiding and abetting sex tourism, and

(numerous pedophilia charges)

I agree that the scum should be arrested, charged, jailed, etc, but found it odd that he wasn't arrested and sent to Canada, or even back to Thailand. Instead he is arrested on American charges and being sent to the US.

It is interesting how some countries do seem to think that their laws should apply internationally,and they should have the right to arrest people from other countries, anywhere in the world, for breaking those laws.

Wonder how loud they'll scream if the shoe was on the other foot though ?

The scum should be arrested, it pisses me off its my tax money doing it.

And us arresting non-citizens for breaking america laws but not doind it america pisses me off.... Its wrong and a waist of tax money (lawyer fees, jail fees)...

Edited December 19, 2008 by MyphuketLife

[bonobo]

More recently, the Canadian, living in Thailand, arrested in England and (immediately it seems) extradited to the US, to face charges of:

conspiracy to engage in sex tourism,

two counts of aiding and abetting sex tourism, and

(numerous pedophilia charges)

If he was doing any business in the US (sending photos, selling tours to Americans, etc.) then that would have been the basis for a US case.  I am not familiar with this case, so I can't say for sure what happened.

There was also the case of a Syrian arms dealer that was arrested in Spain (at the request of the US) and extradited to the states, for much the same charges as Victor Bout. It took them awhile (almost a year after his arrest), but they finally got him to the US.

There are also laws on the American books, that allow Americans to file suit against foreign nationals that do business with countries the Americans don't like. For example, a large (Canadian) mining company doing business with Cuba. Some Cuban exiles claim the company is operating on land that used to belong to them and file a lawsuit (in an American court of course).

A (Canadian) executive of the company flies to New York for a conference and is arrested (my understanding is that he was quietly released and the suit seemed to have quietly faded away as well. I think some very high priced lawyers may have mentioned that if other countries enacted similar laws, it wouldn't work out to well for a lot of American businesses).

 

This sounds very fishy.  People are not arrested in civil cases.  People and companies may be issued summons, and if they ignore the summons, it is possible, but not probable to be held in comtempt, but usually, that just prejudices your case.  So I highly doubt that any Candian executive was arrested, and I really doubt that even if he was served with a summons, no mention my lawyers the point about other coutnries enacting similar laws would affect a judge.

What you have to rememeber is that anyone can file a lawsuit over anything in the US.  The key is to get a judge to agree that the lawsuit warrants action, and in this case, whether there is jurisdiction.

There is a law in affect since the Kennedy administration which stipulates that the US has jurisdiction when companies do business with companies formerly owned by Cubans (now living in the US) which were taken over my the Cuban government.  THe EU at first opposed this law, but they withdrew their complaint to the World COurt.

If you are referring to Sherritt International, the most famous Canadian company involved with this provision, then no one was ever arrested. Some executives are not allowed to travel to the US as provided for in the act, but no one has been arrested.

Whether this law is right or wrong, it deosn't help to misstate things.  The US has done enough over the last 8 years to upset people around the world.  We don't have to make up more things as well.

[Tafia]

British lad hacked into yank govt computers from his home in UK looking for ufo info. Any rate believe he is or was extradited to USA.

WAS and faced Trial and Jailed

[bonobo]

British lad hacked into yank govt computers from his home in UK looking for ufo info. Any rate believe he is or was extradited to USA.

WAS and faced Trial and Jailed

And this surprises anybody?

If I hack into Swiss bank accounts while I am in the US, don't you think I would be extradited to Switzerland?

[Kerryd]

There is a law in affect since the Kennedy administration which stipulates that the US has jurisdiction when companies do business with companies formerly owned by Cubans (now living in the US) which were taken over my the Cuban government.  THe EU at first opposed this law, but they withdrew their complaint to the World COurt.

If you are referring to Sherritt International, the most famous Canadian company involved with this provision, then no one was ever arrested. Some executives are not allowed to travel to the US as provided for in the act, but no one has been arrested.

OK, guess I mis-remembered that (it was 12 years ago now). It was actually the Helms-Burton Act, during the Clinton administration that I was thinking of.

"Title IV of the Act allows American authorities to bar executives of companies which traffic in nationalized property from entering the United States. This also applies to their immediate families. According to media reports, this provision has been used against several directors of Sherritt International, but it is unlikely to affect most Canadian investors."

"On July 10 1996, the U.S. State Department announced sanctions against Toronto-based Sherritt International Corporation under Title IV of the Helms-Burton law that further strengthens the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba.

The top nine executives of Sherritt and their immediate families were barred from entering the United States."

So I was wrong about anyone being arrested (was probably thinking or remembering something that they could be arrested. Long time ago now).

I like the part where even their immediate families were barred as well.

Oh yeah, apparently the EU and a number of other countries enacted laws prohibiting any of their companies from complying with the American law. I read some various articles on it, but it's not worth posting lots of boring details (and doesn't really pertain to the topic at hand).

While this isn't a case of a foreign national being extradited from a foreign country to face charges under American law, it is (was) a case of one nation enacting legislation that could affect foreign nationals dealing with other foreign countries.

[sriracha john]

More recently, the Canadian, living in Thailand, arrested in England and (immediately it seems) extradited to the US, to face charges of:

conspiracy to engage in sex tourism,

two counts of aiding and abetting sex tourism, and

(numerous pedophilia charges)

I agree that the scum should be arrested, charged, jailed, etc, but found it odd that he wasn't arrested and sent to Canada, or even back to Thailand. Instead he is arrested on American charges and being sent to the US.

He's still in the UK and it looks like it will take several weeks to get him extradited.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Canadian-Liv...ed-t229889.html

*Edit. Further comments self-removed. Best just to point out the above and leave the topic closed here as it is in that thread. It would only derail.

Edited December 19, 2008 by sriracha john

[Richard W]

I suggest you head back to the country you were spying for, they usually protect you.

I am interested in how this is related to Thailand? (Not suggesting that it isn't, but sure would like to know how).

It called "RICO" - Uncle Sam will extradite you from anywhere with RICO if he wants to .... actually never mind RICO - it what he uses a lot of the time, but he'll extradite you if he wants you!!

It relates because if the Al Yamanah bribery allegations are established, the good many of BAE Systems' 100,000 UK employees who have exercised employee share options are in breach of RICO, and should therefore not visit a country from which they might be extradited. I doubt BAE Systems employees are the only ones theoretically at risk in the European defence industry. I've focused on employee share options because they are a good way of demonstrating that income derived indirectly through bribery has been used to acquire an interest in a business trading internationally, along with the power to elect the business's directors.

So, do I myself need to search for the extradition treaty between Thailand and the USA to find out if Thailand holds yet another danger for tourists?

[LooseCannon]

The US signed a warrant for Osama bin Laden after 911, but Afghanistan refused to honor the extradiction.

They had absolutely no requirement to honour anything.

The US government did not recognise the Taliban government of Afghanistan, there was no diplomatic relationship & there was no extradition treaty (and there still is no treaty).

Of course they had no requirement to honor anything. They were a sovereign nation and could extradite someone or not.

When they did not, the US acted against a country from where an attack was made on US soil, killing thousands of US and other citizens.

That was their choice. It was not as if the US government did not tell them what would happen if they didn't. But if they had turned over bin Laden, then the Taliban would still be in power today. So I guess you would have to ask them if it was worth it or not to thumb their nose at the US request for extradition.

What the OP asked about was 'extradition'. Your use of Osama bin Laden as an example is an extremely poor choice.

The act of 'extradition' or 'extraditing' a person from a foreign country (with or without a formal treaty) requires certain legal obligations which relate to matters of evidence (US Code TITLE 18 > PART II > CHAPTER 209 > § 3190 'Evidence on hearing').

With regard to bin Laden, the US government was 'negotiating' (I use the term loosely) with the Taliban prior to Sept 11 2001 & continued to do so after. The US government consistently refused to provide evidence of bin Laden's guilt to the Taliban. What the US government did was to issue a series of ultimatums to the Taliban. Nothing to do with what is regarded as the legal process of 'extradition' but rather bully boy tactics, sham negotiations to further the Neocon agenda.

Like I said previousely - we have 2 ignorant, arrogant & 'medieval' governments,both morally bankrupt, both with an agenda that was diametrically opposed to the other. The perfect recipe for death & destruction.

There are plenty of examples of people being extradited to the US & how the extradition process works without including the 'hunt for bin Laden', a sad & sorrow saga of lies, misinformation, distortion & abject failure.

" It was not as if the US government did not tell them what would happen if they didn't. But if they had turned over bin Laden, then the Taliban would still be in power today. So I guess you would have to ask them if it was worth it or not to thumb their nose at the US request for extradition." - probably best not to comment to much on this, but rather provide a quote from The Washington Post Oct 29 2001 "...President Bush summarily rejected another Taliban offer to give up bin Laden to a neutral third country. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over," Bush said."

[cathyy]

But unless my mind is completely fried, Jon Johansen was in fact put on trial in Norway, not the US, for DeCCS.

Right you are. But before he was tried and acquitted in Norway of violating their law, which was passed after the fact specifically to prosecute him, the MPAA tried to charge him with violating the DMCA, and actually filed in court in Norway. The judge quite intelligently threw it out.

[bonobo]

The US signed a warrant for Osama bin Laden after 911, but Afghanistan refused to honor the extradiction.

They had absolutely no requirement to honour anything.

The US government did not recognise the Taliban government of Afghanistan, there was no diplomatic relationship & there was no extradition treaty (and there still is no treaty).

Of course they had no requirement to honor anything. They were a sovereign nation and could extradite someone or not.

When they did not, the US acted against a country from where an attack was made on US soil, killing thousands of US and other citizens.

That was their choice. It was not as if the US government did not tell them what would happen if they didn't. But if they had turned over bin Laden, then the Taliban would still be in power today. So I guess you would have to ask them if it was worth it or not to thumb their nose at the US request for extradition.

What the OP asked about was 'extradition'. Your use of Osama bin Laden as an example is an extremely poor choice.

The act of 'extradition' or 'extraditing' a person from a foreign country (with or without a formal treaty) requires certain legal obligations which relate to matters of evidence (US Code TITLE 18 > PART II > CHAPTER 209 > § 3190 'Evidence on hearing').

With regard to bin Laden, the US government was 'negotiating' (I use the term loosely) with the Taliban prior to Sept 11 2001 & continued to do so after. The US government consistently refused to provide evidence of bin Laden's guilt to the Taliban. What the US government did was to issue a series of ultimatums to the Taliban. Nothing to do with what is regarded as the legal process of 'extradition' but rather bully boy tactics, sham negotiations to further the Neocon agenda.

Like I said previousely - we have 2 ignorant, arrogant & 'medieval' governments,both morally bankrupt, both with an agenda that was diametrically opposed to the other. The perfect recipe for death & destruction.

There are plenty of examples of people being extradited to the US & how the extradition process works without including the 'hunt for bin Laden', a sad & sorrow saga of lies, misinformation, distortion & abject failure.

" It was not as if the US government did not tell them what would happen if they didn't. But if they had turned over bin Laden, then the Taliban would still be in power today. So I guess you would have to ask them if it was worth it or not to thumb their nose at the US request for extradition." - probably best not to comment to much on this, but rather provide a quote from The Washington Post Oct 29 2001 "...President Bush summarily rejected another Taliban offer to give up bin Laden to a neutral third country. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over," Bush said."

Wow! I can see you have an appropriate moniker here!

Including a mention of bin Laden is perfectly acceptable as I see it. It certainly is within the spirit of subsequent posts, If you don't agree, so be it. You word usage sows you have a very biased view against US policies, and as someone who had to serve in Iraq, I also probably have some of those same views. But that does not mean I cannot look at things objectively.

[bonobo]

But unless my mind is completely fried, Jon Johansen was in fact put on trial in Norway, not the US, for DeCCS.

Right you are. But before he was tried and acquitted in Norway of violating their law, which was passed after the fact specifically to prosecute him, the MPAA tried to charge him with violating the DMCA, and actually filed in court in Norway. The judge quite intelligently threw it out.

I also thought that the prime entity pushing a lawsuit was Sony. At least that is what my feeble memory recalls.

And the MPAA has no authority to charge anyone with anything. They can only sue. It is my understanding that the Norwegian government actually charged him with a crime, and that only after the trial was completed was a verdict of not guilty reached.

After that, he came to California where he worked for several companies, one being in my hometown of San Diego.

Well, I guess I could do some research on it. I am on the raod now with a balky hotel computer, so I will look it up when I return home next week.

[Mosha]

British lad hacked into yank govt computers from his home in UK looking for ufo info. Any rate believe he is or was extradited to USA.

WAS and faced Trial and Jailed

They should have thanked him not jailed him. apparently the US govrnment hadn't heard of firewalls.

[beechguy]

The US signed a warrant for Osama bin Laden after 911, but Afghanistan refused to honor the extradiction.

They had absolutely no requirement to honour anything.

The US government did not recognise the Taliban government of Afghanistan, there was no diplomatic relationship & there was no extradition treaty (and there still is no treaty).

But what we did have was 2 ignorant, arrogant & 'medieval' governments, both with an agenda that was diametrically opposed to the other. The perfect recipe for death & destruction.

To the OP - for some people no offence needs to have been committed, no need for the inconvenience of evidence or proof, just a silent kidnapping & whisking off to Quantamo Bay.

Quaintly called 'rendition' to make it sound like a relaxing holiday on a Pattaya beach where you can indulge in such activities as waterboarding.

There was no death and destruction of innocent people under the Taliban? Anyway, it was dam_n unfair of the U.S. to interrupt the vacation of all those Saudi's and Yemeni's in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Edited December 20, 2008 by beechguy

[h90]

If they USA wants you, you'll be extradited and tortured there.

But they prefer to send you to a secret prison for getting tortured. A couple of former ex-eastern block countries may have these secret prisons (the EU was upset but not it is quite again). Some claimed that such prison did exist in Thailand but I don't know if there was a real evidence.

Such prison are also sometimes on boats.

[j0hnga1t]

Being in law enforcement in the US, in 2004, I was involved in a counterfeit software case.  The target was in Ukrainian national.  Normally we wouldn't care EXCEPT he sold to people in the US.  When the other agents in the case caught wind of him going to Thailand, they arranged with the Royal Thai Police to arrest the guy for US violations with what is called a provisional arrest warrant (on the last day of his vacation while he was having ice cream with his wife).  It took 2 years to extradite, but he finally showed up here.  Including time in Thai prison, he served 35 months....