One of the main differences is that he is an Iranian citizen (I assume since it says he was born in Iran and now living in Canada) and he returned to Iran to visit family.

So there was no extradition here. He was arrested in his home country.

Do I agree with the law? No. I think it is barbaric and ridiculous. However, it isn't like he was sitting in Canada and the Iranian government petitioned to have him sent back to Iran to stand trial and face the death penalty for this.

It's an apples and oranges situation.

Thanks Perry :thumbsup

Yes it is. But what if Iran has requested his extradition officially? Would Canada give him up?

I wonder what the cost to US tax payers is on this one? Would be easier to shut the sites and leave him alone right?

CyberSEO:
It may be the case that what he did is just as illegal in Australia? So question is not whether some law was broken, but where to hold the trial... and since in theory the crime took place in the US, all the evidence is in the US, all the victims are in the US, etc... it makes most sense to hold the trial in the US?

and your analogy may be slightly off, better analogy would perhaps be: you are a businessman that exports cookies to Russia... it turns out that the cookies are contaminated and 10,000s of Russian citizens die... What do you think should happen in that situation? Nothing? that businessman's home country should protect him, case closed?

Yep. This is the post that stood out for me.

Do you really think it is a better comparison? Personally I don't think so and many here will agree with me, because Dotcom's acuity was legal in New Zealand (where he gonna be extradited from).

But if you really want to talk about "poisoned cookies"... well, here we go: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...rope-asia.aspx



Any extraditions followed, ah?

P.S. Yes, I know it's an off-topic, but I just had to answer to the woj's post.

the point is not whether the analogy is better or not... but what do you think should happen in that situation?

let me give you another one: US hacker hacks the Moscow stock exchange which results in Russian companies losing Billions... it's obvious who the perpetrator is, plenty of evidence against him, he even brags about it acting like a big shot, etc...

what should happen in that situation? obviously nothing would happen :1orglaugh, but in an ideal world how should it play out? should he get extradited, or US should protect him and nothing should happen?

The local police will report him to FBI so he'll get a prison time for that in the States. It's like in those cases when Russian children were murdered in the US foster cares (e.g. Dima Yakovlev). Do you have any more "better" examples, of we will get back to the my one?

In other words, I don't remember any cases of extraditions of non-Russian citizens to Russia in order to get them sued here. Of course this does not apply to Russian criminals that are trying to hide from the Justice on Cuba on somewhere else. This should be obvious, isn't it?

err, whut?

Difference in this case you brought up is that it actually happened in the US, all the evidence is in the US, all the witnesses, etc... so yea, the trial obviously would be in the US, where else should it be?

That's probably because not many foreigners commit crimes in Russia and then manage to flee... but if they did, I'm pretty sure Russia would try to extradite them too? no? or would they just let it go?

lets say some idiot (non-Russian citizen) murders 100 people in Russia then flees to Zimbabwe, Russia would call up Zimbabwe police, he would get arrested there and trial would be held there, eh? or would they try to extradite him?

point being, the trial should be where the crime took place, not where the criminal is currently residing... no? or do you think in that scenario the trial should actually take place in Zimbabwe?

Trade agreements between US and NZ compel NZ to act.
Its a primary goal of FTA and TPP.

Nonsense.

The UK ATVOD rules only apply to UK based companies.



5.1 Services only fall within the scope of the Act if they are provided by an entity that falls
under UK jurisdiction in accordance with Article 2 of the Directive, the relevant
provisions of which are summarised below (subject to the exception outlined in
section 5.3 of this Guidance). The service provider of an on-demand programme
service will fall under the UK?s jurisdiction if it is established in the UK.

:2 cents:

They will always get you, one way or another.

come on man, I can't think of any country on this planet that would extradite someone to Iran no less a western country... outside of terrorism maybe.

The Iran porn argument is not valid.

Bottom line : Nobody with half a brain has an extradition agreement with Iran.

End of story.

If Kim Dot Com moves to Iran then he is free of American justice.

If we ever do make an agreement to extradite to Iran then it will happen if we think the
charges fit and the punishment fits.

Kim Dotcom's problem is this list :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ition_treaties

Iran ain't on the list but New Zealand is.

Kim Dot Com will soon be Kim Duc Cum in prison.

:1orglaugh

Whatever you do on a .COM extension can bring you back to the USA. Can't believe people over look this all the time.

All these arguments being made with Russia and Iran are useless.

If the country is not on this list then there is no point to even discuss extradition :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ition_treaties

It's actually fucking stupid to ask why no Americans have been extradited to Russia or Iran.

I mean, if you were in charge, would you be stupid enough to extradite someone to Russia?

:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

did any1 see the vice documentry about him?
http://www.vice.com/vice-news/kim-do...an-behind-mega

says he is fighting for freedom and privacy.
LOL, more like using that as an excuse and fighting for more chocolate pudding.

What's about China or the best friend of the USA as Saudi Arabia?

Again : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ition_treaties

Neither of those countries are on the list.

:helpme

good news :thumbsup

I don't know. I doubt they would seeing as he would be facing the death penalty for a crime they don't see as death penalty worthy.

Had he flown to Iran, shot and killed his ex-wife then fled back to Canada and Iran had strong evidence to prove he did this, it might be a different story.

what if: you were a UK resident, flew to the US and married a woman there, stayed for 25+ months, BOTH returned to the UK, then the wife stayed there while you took a little excursion over to Belgium, and from THERE travelled to France, and pickpocketed tourists who were neither from the UK, USA, Belgium or France, and used the proceeds to set up some fake ebay accounts, with drop addresses throughout France to

#1 buy ebay goods, get them delivered, then contest/win back payments out
#2 sold those same goods on other ebay accounts to various (but 'clean') punters, so the goods were genuine, albeit stolen

then travelled back to Belgium, caught a plane to Hong Kong, took a dump, caught another flight out (either the same day, or a day later...or even a few days or a week or a fortnight, maybe even longer than THAT) to the US, met your wife at the in-laws, and then both made your way back to the UK.

What would you say should happen then? Not say what would happen in your opinion, but what you WOULD say, *if* the above events took place as stated.

Nothing is black and white :2 cents:

Well, aside from Michael Jackson.

:1orglaughI would say you hijacked the thread from the OP's topic and you spend to much time thinking up hypothetical situations.

LMFAO:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

lol well I was kinda hoping to hijack the hijackers :D If this if that blahblahblah

I think we need to be careful with all this hijacking we might be confused with terrorists! lol