NEWS: Taliban Drug Lord Extradited To USA

Subz: That was a VERY tasteful, and necessary defense of the author. Mayet, I think you wrote a good post.

Now, here's a good question:
Would it be ethical if the exact same scenario as described above were to take place, with the only difference being that the United States already had treaties with the specific country in question? I'm kind off leaning towards no, simply because I'm convinced that no treaty would ever exist with a country that required reciprocal cooperation inversely. That is, we would never sign a paper to receive extradition cooperation from another country if they demanded the same in return. Unless that situation took place, I don't think extradition is ever really ethical unless the crime involved mailing a bomb. I more strongly agree that we can *help* capture folks, so that they can be tried on their own soil, but...what if they really ARE monsters who are being sheilded by the corrupt government they reside in? If legendary altruistic leaders like Solomon, or Arthur were in charge of our country, I wouldn't mind allowing our leadership to choose whether to kidnap a bad guy from another country, but since this is the real world, how do we draw the ethical boundaries? What do you guys think?? How could a policy be worded so precisely that it kept us from just going and grabbing anyone we darn well please, but still be able to go after the very real, and undoubtable threats (if there is such a thing)?

In all fairness to shots, I was also confused. I got the impression that the man was arrested by US agents. Why?

from Mayet
So now the USA is going into other countries and arresting citizens to extradite to the USA to face charges. Umm this is wrong.

and your own statement, subz, which I highlighted:

from subz
The United States has no authority or mandate to solely police the World and they shouldn't even try.

It seems that you subsequently edited that sentence out. You even called me on my post, remember?

The source that Mayet supplied says nothing about who arrested the man:

from source article
Mohammad, who was arrested in Afghanistan in January, was extradited on Friday. Mr Garcia said he was the first person sent from his country to face US charges.

I can see where shots got confused.

Originally posted by jsobecky
In all fairness to shots, I was also confused. I got the impression that the man was arrested by US agents. Why?

Thank you, but I was not confused at all I was simply trying to point out the very same issues you did.

No shots... you were trying your utmost to imply things that didn't exist. Its clear in your posts you were attacking the author of the thread. You accused the author of distorting facts.

As Josbecky said...In the source I quoted from there WAS NO MENTION OF WHO ARRESTED HIM.

If people read the intro and read the source story then they would clearly know that. My opinion as said, is just that, an opinion.

Yet you implied I had distorted facts and not reported the whole story.

It is clear you continually go out of your way to cause trouble and your veiled attacks towards various authors here on atsnn are transparent, unwarranted, uncalled for and distasteful.



[edit on 25-10-2005 by Mayet]

Who invaded Afganistan?
Who has thousands of soldiers in that Nation?

That is who is in control of Afganistan, like it or not.

The USA needs to arrest the CIA for the hundreds of tons of coc aine they imported in the 80's .

Thanks Ghaleon4

Originally posted by jsobecky
and your own statement, subz, which I highlighted:

from subz
The United States has no authority or mandate to solely police the World and they shouldn't even try.

It seems that you subsequently edited that sentence out. You even called me on my post, remember?

I never edited any sentence out, what are you talking about? Both sentences you've quoted here are still on the front page.

You've just assumed I was talking about who arrested this guy. I wasnt. But as Odium said, the United States runs Afghanistan and they have thousands of troops there. You really think a country such as Afghanistan has the resources to go after druglords? Wouldnt the Taleban and terrorists be their first priority?

What I meant by my sentence, that you've seized upon, is that the United States is "policing" as in trying and sentencing foreigners for crimes committed in foreign countries. Hence my reference to the Russian cabinet member. He was arrested in Switzerland, by the Swisss but that doesnt mean the Americans arent trying to police the World when they ask for him to be extradited to the US. He is a Russian politician with nuclear state secrets and he committed fraud in Russia so he should stand trial in RUSSIA!

Originally posted by jsobecky
The source that Mayet supplied says nothing about who arrested the man:

So can you stop grilling me over that? I never was talking about who arrested the man, not that I think its relevant in the slightest.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I can see where shots got confused.

As he said, he wasnt confused. He deliberately attacked Mayet's integrity in an attempt to make his opposition to her opinion look better.

[edit on 25/10/05 by subz]

I never edited any sentence out, what are you talking about? Both sentences you've quoted here are still on the front page.

My apologies. I swear I looked that over twice and totally missed it.

You may not have thought who did the arrest was relevant; I did. If it were the US acting without permission, then it changes the situation from extradition to kidnapping.

Originally posted by jsobecky
My apologies. I swear I looked that over twice and totally missed it.

No problem, I did the very samething not 3 days ago.

Originally posted by jsobecky
You may not have thought who did the arrest was relevant; I did.

I dont have a problem with that except you were challenging me on what I wrote because you thought I was discussing something else. You could of asked me to clarify my position before assuming.

Originally posted by jsobecky
If it were the US acting without permission, then it changes the situation from extradition to kidnapping.

It doesnt really affect my stance but theres always the case of the CIA agents kidnapping Abu Omar from Milan in 2003. All without Italian permission.

WAR: Italian Judge Orders Arrest of 13 CIA Agents

Mayet, your story is good, but the concluding comments show a misunderstanding of international law. We do have an extradition treaty with Afganistan in place and as I indicated in my earlier post, the man in question need never have set foot on American soil to be charged with a crime in this country.

In all likelihood, American sources either tipped the authorities in Afganistan off to the whereabouts of this man and then probably assisted in the arrest by providing support to those authorities--this scenario happens all over the world. As long as the Americans did not do anything other than support Afgani police they did nothing wrong. America then obviously requested extradition, which was granted. Happens all the time all over the world and it isn't just Americans who do it, many other countries do exactly the same thing. The only oddity about this case is that the man in question is the first person extradited under the extradition treaty.

If an Afgani criminal fled to the U.S. and the Afgani authorities then provided information to the Americans and/or support to the Americans to expedite his arrest. This country would have accepted the help and arrested the person. Of course Afgani authorities would then have to request extraditiion to get their hands on the person.

Now in the case Subz cited above (with provision of the link), proper procedures were not followed. The CIA simply kidnapped the man in question and shipped him off to Egypt. Egypt questioned the man and then released him and he subsequently complained to the Italian authorities who indicted the Americans involved. I've never read if extradition was requested, but it probably was and was refused because the men involved worked for the government and kidnapped the man under government direction. The operation was clearly a violation of international law.

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

No not a misunderstanding at all. I just think all boundaries are being broken

Also this drug lord would of undoubtedly exported drugs to all corners of the globe. Why is it the United States that gets preference here? Doesn't most of Afghanistan's drugs go through Iran to Europe? Wouldn't the Europeans have more cause to put this person on trial?

Im sorry but I don't really recognize the Karzai government as anything more than a corporate offshoot of Unocal, a major American corporation. Is it a happy coincidence that Hamid Karzai was the Unocal employee trying to get Unocal access to build a pipeline through Afghanistan and now he is the U.S backed President of Afghanistan? For all intents and purposes, the American government is writing Afghani laws and treaties. If they pulled support for Karzai due to differing opinions he would be dead within a week. The protection given to Karzai via the U.S military is all that is keeping him and his government alive.

Originally posted by subz
Also this drug lord would of undoubtedly exported drugs to all corners of the globe. Why is it the United States that gets preference here? Doesn't most of Afghanistan's drugs go through Iran to Europe? Wouldn't the Europeans have more cause to put this person on trial?

Why the Europeans have not sought to extradite him is for them to answer. Any answer given here would be pure speculation.

Im sorry but I don't really recognize the Karzai government as anything more than a corporate offshoot of Unocal, a major American corporation. Is it a happy coincidence that Hamid Karzai was the Unocal employee trying to get Unocal access to build a pipeline through Afghanistan and now he is the U.S backed President of Afghanistan? For all intents and purposes, the American government is writing Afghani laws and treaties. If they pulled support for Karzai due to differing opinions he would be dead within a week. The protection given to Karzai via the U.S military is all that is keeping him and his government alive.

That is your opinion. I see it as two nations working together under an extradition treaty. That treaty is no less valid than, say, our extradition treaties with Great Britain.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Why the Europeans have not sought to extradite him is for them to answer. Any answer given here would be pure speculation.

I would speculate that the Europeans knew they wouldnt have a chance getting Haji Baz before the Americans are through with him. What chance would they of had, really?

Originally posted by jsobecky
That is your opinion. I see it as two nations working together under an extradition treaty. That treaty is no less valid than, say, our extradition treaties with Great Britain.

Of course there is a difference. Did Afghanistan have an extradition treaty before the U.S backed, financed and imposed Afghani regime? I've been searching for the treaty and honestly cannot find it mentioned any where. Does the United States actually have a formal extradition treaty with the United States? If they do they should inform the UN as they have no listing of any extradition treaty between the Afghans and the Americans. The only country Aghanistan has any judicial treaty with is the Czech Republic (Czechoslovakia).

www.uncjin.org...

Regardless, are you trying to equate the independance of the British government to that of the Karzai government? Did America have any hand in getting Tony Blair into government? Does America currently protect Westminster from insurgents with active combat troops? Does America financially assist the existance of the British government?

[edit on 26/10/05 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
Also this drug lord would of undoubtedly exported drugs to all corners of the globe. Why is it the United States that gets preference here?

I think you already know the answer to that question.

Doesn't most of Afghanistan's drugs go through Iran to Europe? Wouldn't the Europeans have more cause to put this person on trial?

Yes and probably.

Im sorry but I don't really recognize the Karzai government as anything more than a corporate offshoot of Unocal, a major American corporation. Is it a happy coincidence that Hamid Karzai was the Unocal employee trying to get Unocal access to build a pipeline through Afghanistan and now he is the U.S backed President of Afghanistan? For all intents and purposes, the American government is writing Afghani laws and treaties. If they pulled support for Karzai due to differing opinions he would be dead within a week. The protection given to Karzai via the U.S military is all that is keeping him and his government alive.

I'm sorry you don't recognize the Karzai government as legitimate Subz. If I'm not mistaken he won the election in a landslide. As to who is writing Afgani laws, I really have no idea, though I suspect Afgani's are, using U.S. laws as a template/model. I think you are somewhat more pessimistic than is warranted concerning the government of Afganistan. Granted the government needs protection from the Taliban, but I am unaware of other reasons for it to need protection. You do realize you are all but calling the Afgani elections a sham. Once again, if I am not mistaken, the U.N. and other election monitors found no serious flaws with either the election procedures, or the results. As far as I have been able to determine, Karzai was elected legitimately and the government of Afganistan is a legitimate government supported by the majority of Afganis.

Originally posted by subz
I would speculate that the Europeans knew they wouldnt have a chance getting Haji Baz before the Americans are through with him. What chance would they of had, really?

If they are serious, they can get into the queue behind the US and have him when we are finished with him. They would have had the same chance anyone had to nab him first if they were serious to begin with.

While we're speculating here, I would say that the lure of drug money is very seductive, esp. to some of these very poor European countries.

Originally posted by jsobecky
That is your opinion. I see it as two nations working together under an extradition treaty. That treaty is no less valid than, say, our extradition treaties with Great Britain

Of course there is a difference. Did Afghanistan have an extradition treaty before the U.S backed, financed and imposed Afghani regime?
Regardless, are you trying to equate the independance of the British government to that of the Karzai government? Did America have any hand in getting Tony Blair into government? Does America currently protect Westminster from insurgents with active combat troops? Does America financially assist the existance of the British government?

Why in the world does it matter? Britain is not Afghanistan. Relationships between countries are always changing.

For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the Afghani gov't is a puppet of the US. So what? It may get under your skin, but it makes no difference to the rest of the world.

Of course Afganistan has an extrodition treaty with the United States of America - how would they say no?

Well...we have only a basic army, small to non-existant Navy and Air Force and you have thousands of soliders based in our Nation.

Yes, we have a full say in what is going on.

Colony!

Can you say it people? Well can you?

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I think you already know the answer to that question.

I suspect the answer to be that Karzai is in the pocket of Unocal and will do what ever he is told by his American masters.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I'm sorry you don't recognize the Karzai government as legitimate Subz. If I'm not mistaken he won the election in a landslide. As to who is writing Afgani laws, I really have no idea, though I suspect Afgani's are, using U.S. laws as a template/model.

Karzai was appointed interim Afghani leader by the American government. He was then voted in amidst claims of fraud and threats of boycotts from the opposition. It goes without saying that a fractured country such as Afghanistan would vote in any one they know or that seemed to bring some kind of stability to Kabul. Karzai was given free reign to look Presidential for years without a vote ever being cast to give him that position. What real chance did any other candidate have? Even if the voting wasnt fraudulent.

KABUL, Afghanistan – Hamid Karzai has won Afghanistan's landmark presidential election, a spokesman for its electoral board said Wednesday, after investigators concluded that fraud and technical errors were too minor to overturn his triumph.

The three-strong panel was called in after Qanooni and other challengers claimed massive fraud in favor of Karzai and threatened to boycott the results.

In its final report released Wednesday, the panel confirmed problems including ballot stuffing and with ink used to mark people's fingers to prevent multiple voting.

But it said there was "no evidence" that the problems were widespread, or that they favored only Karzai.

Karzai Wins Afghanistan's Presidential Election

Who were these investigators? They werent the US supreme court were they? Regardless, they DID find there was vote fraud, what needs to be said?

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I think you are somewhat more pessimistic than is warranted concerning the government of Afganistan. Granted the government needs protection from the Taliban, but I am unaware of other reasons for it to need protection.

The Karzai government doesnt have the complete support of all the factions and parties that make up tribal Afghanistan. There are a lot of Afghanis who do not like Karzai and would like to see him gone.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
You do realize you are all but calling the Afgani elections a sham.

Yes I know I am and I stand by that. Even the latest parliamentary election had acknowledged and widespread ballot stuffing and voter fraud.

KABUL, Afghanistan, Oct. 2 - Election officials and observers said today that with 80 percent of the ballots counted in Afghanistan's national and provincial elections, they had found significant incidents of fraud.

Whole districts have come under suspicion for ballot box stuffing and proxy voting, said Peter Erben, the chief international electoral officer in charge of Afghanistan's parliamentary elections. He said that ballot boxes from 4 percent of the country's 26,000 polling stations - about 1,000 stations - had been set aside to be investigated for fraud and other irregularities.

The European Union observer mission said the reports of fraud and possible intimidation of voters were "worrying," In a statement, the mission said, "While these phenomena do not appear to be nationwide, they are a cause for concern."

Votin g Fraud Is Found in Afghanistan's Election

Come on Astronomer, how many reports of fraud do you need to see before you accept these elections were at the very least tainted. I have enough testimony to conclude these elections are a sham when you compare it to Karzai's personal history. The guy was a key figure in trying to secure Unocal's gas pipeline through Afghanistan. The Taliban told Unocal to shove it, and a few months later Afghanistan is invaded, Karzai is made President, gas pipeline is given the go ahead, and you dont find it at all shambolic?

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Once again, if I am not mistaken, the U.N. and other election monitors found no serious flaws with either the election procedures, or the results.

"No serious flaws"? As opposed to minor flaws in elections? How much vote fraud constitutes a serious flaw? Can you also be not seriously dead? Or how about not seriously paralyzed from the waist down? These elections contained fraud, as such they were fraudulent. If Karzai was some backwater Afghani with no connections to the United States or a major American corporation with interests in Afghanistan I would be less pessimistic on the issue. But you cant discount that all these things point to a corrupt U.S sponsored puppet government.

Lets say the Iranians managed to invade and conquer Afghanistan. Then an Afghani who used to work for an Iranian oil giant was nominated interim Afghan President. Then he was voted in as Afghanistan's President amidst thousands of documented cases of vote fraud. The new Afghani President then passed laws favouring Iran. What would the American view be of this Iranian backed Afghani government? Peachy clean and totally independant from Tehran? Some how I seriously doubt it.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
As far as I have been able to determine, Karzai was elected legitimately and the government of Afganistan is a legitimate government supported by the majority of Afganis.

Sorry Astronomer but there are many documented cases of vote rigging, ballot stuffing, intimidation and vote fraud that say otherwise.

Originally posted by jsobecky
If they are serious, they can get into the queue behind the US and have him when we are finished with him. They would have had the same chance anyone had to nab him first if they were serious to begin with.

Thats cute. What happens if the United States gives him a life sentence or the death penalty? Whats the current American policy against waging war against America? 2 - 3 years minimum security?

Originally posted by jsobecky
While we're speculating here, I would say that the lure of drug money is very seductive, esp. to some of these very poor European countries.

Most definately. Its also very seductive for national intelligence agencies.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Why in the world does it matter? Britain is not Afghanistan. Relationships between countries are always changing.

Thats what I thought yet you compared the two. Britain most definately isnt Afghanistan yet you compared extradition treaties of both countries. I put forth a valid claim that any Afghan treaty signed into law by Karzai is tainted due to the vast control America retains over Afghanistan and its government. You didnt show the same scenario with America and Britain, did you? Plus I still cannot find any mention anywhere of this supposed extradition treaty between Afghanistan and America. The UN has no record of it. The U.S State Department has no mention of it. We read it in MSM so we must assume it's true?

Originally posted by jsobecky
For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the Afghani gov't is a puppet of the US. So what? It may get under your skin, but it makes no difference to the rest of the world.

Oh contrare. It makes a lot of difference as far as taking the Afghan government seriously is concerned. Where is their legitimacy when elections were found to contain fraud and the winner is an ex-Unocal official who failed to get the Taliban to play ball? It gets under my skin because its highly suspicious and the American administration tries to gloss over bare faced facts. You dont think other countries see this the same way?

[edit on 26/10/05 by subz]

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by jsobecky
If they are serious, they can get into the queue behind the US and have him when we are finished with him. They would have had the same chance anyone had to nab him first if they were serious to begin with.

Thats cute. What happens if the United States gives him a life sentence or the death penalty? Whats the current American policy against waging war against America? 2 - 3 years minimum security?

Well then maybe they should have been more pro-active in nabbing him, eh? The early bird gets the worm.

Btw, this scenario of cascading extradition is *very* common. In the US, it's not uncommon for several states to wait their turn to prosecute the same criminal.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Why in the world does it matter? Britain is not Afghanistan. Relationships between countries are always changing.

Thats what I thought yet you compared the two. Britain most definately isnt Afghanistan yet you compared extradition treaties of both countries. I put forth a valid claim that any Afghan treaty signed into law by Karzai is tainted due to the vast control America retains over Afghanistan and its government. You didnt show the same scenario with America and Britain, did you? Plus I still cannot find any mention anywhere of this supposed extradition treaty between Afghanistan and America. The UN has no record of it. The U.S State Department has no mention of it. We read it in MSM so we must assume it's true?

No, we need not assume anything. I've been poking around the same sites you have and see that there is no extradition treaty between US and Afghan. There are, however, diplomatic ties between the two countries. This info was dated 2002.

Countries can still cooperate in the absence of an extradition treaty.

Tainted elections? I'm shocked! Shocked! Name a country that has never had a bit of impropriety in their elections.

Originally posted by jsobecky
For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the Afghani gov't is a puppet of the US. So what? It may get under your skin, but it makes no difference to the rest of the world.

Oh contrare. It makes a lot of difference as far as taking the Afghan government seriously is concerned. Where is their legitimacy when elections were found to contain fraud and the winner is an ex-Unocal official who failed to get the Taliban to play ball? It gets under my skin because its highly suspicious and the American administration tries to gloss over bare faced facts. You dont think other countries see this the same way?

It may make a difference to you, and to some other countries, but we don't care. Business needed to be done and was done.