5 ms·

Probably Kim Dotcom has done wrong, but I don't think he deserves to go to court and or prison in a country he has never resided in.

sergiogjr 2y ago
I'm not sure that can be applied consistently. Would you say the same about heads of drug cartels or human trafficking rings (not equating these to Kim, as I'm sure you understand)?
- bamboozled 2y ago
  When is the last time the head of pretty much any drug cartel was extradited to the USA?
  - drcode 2y ago
    A couple months ago: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/sinaloa-cartel-leader-nestor-isidro-perez-salas-aka-nini-extradited-united-states-drug https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/sinaloa-cartel-leader-n...
  - maccard 2y ago
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/lead-defendant-long-running-drug-trafficking-conspiracy-extradited-united-states-mexico https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/lead-defendant-long-running-d... maybe not head, but 3 weeks ago. There's a bunch of these people extradited all the time.
- harperlee 2y ago
  I think you should build your argument a little bit more. I’d say, why not say that also for drug cartels? The only reasonable argument that comes to my mind is that some big cartel head might have local government influence, but that does not apply to Kim and New Zealand, right? Another possible argument would be that the damage has been done elsewhere. But in the case of the dtug cartel, if there are victims in 20 countries that why would any third party have priority for enforcing their law?
  - Blot2882 2y ago
    > if there are victims in 20 countries that why would any third party have priority for enforcing their law That's not really relevant. No one is arguing priority. "Priority" implies there's 20 countries fighting to prosecute someone and we need to resolve it. In this case, it was a cooperation between multiple countries who agreed someone needed to be prosecuted, regardless of which country did it.
    - harperlee 2y ago
      The point being why should any argument in this line end up with “lets extradite him to the US”, when he is already in a cooperating country that will enforce acceptable local law. And his own country, where he resides, and where the did the purported crimes.
      - Blot2882 2y ago
        > The point being why should any argument in this line end up with “lets extradite him to the US” Because New Zealand is willing to and he broke the law in the U.S. as well? Why would there be an argument at all? You were criticizing someone's argument and brought up two points of your own that don't make sense to me. Drug cartel members DO get extradited.
- nottommo 2y ago
  No because they have committed serious violent crimes. Human trafficking is not the same as enabling and profiting from internet piracy.
  - anothernewdude 2y ago
    What about the wire fraud and money laundering that he's actually accused of?
gexla 2y ago
His choice was to build a lucrative service off U.S. consumers, knowing the service's popularity was in pirating content, mostly created in the U.S.

sergiogjr 2y ago

I'm not sure that can be applied consistently. Would you say the same about heads of drug cartels or human trafficking rings (not equating these to Kim, as I'm sure you understand)?

bamboozled 2y ago
When is the last time the head of pretty much any drug cartel was extradited to the USA?
- drcode 2y ago
  A couple months ago: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/sinaloa-cartel-leader-nestor-isidro-perez-salas-aka-nini-extradited-united-states-drug https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/sinaloa-cartel-leader-n...
- maccard 2y ago
  https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/lead-defendant-long-running-drug-trafficking-conspiracy-extradited-united-states-mexico https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/lead-defendant-long-running-d... maybe not head, but 3 weeks ago. There's a bunch of these people extradited all the time.
harperlee 2y ago
I think you should build your argument a little bit more. I’d say, why not say that also for drug cartels? The only reasonable argument that comes to my mind is that some big cartel head might have local government influence, but that does not apply to Kim and New Zealand, right? Another possible argument would be that the damage has been done elsewhere. But in the case of the dtug cartel, if there are victims in 20 countries that why would any third party have priority for enforcing their law?
- Blot2882 2y ago
  > if there are victims in 20 countries that why would any third party have priority for enforcing their law That's not really relevant. No one is arguing priority. "Priority" implies there's 20 countries fighting to prosecute someone and we need to resolve it. In this case, it was a cooperation between multiple countries who agreed someone needed to be prosecuted, regardless of which country did it.
  - harperlee 2y ago
    The point being why should any argument in this line end up with “lets extradite him to the US”, when he is already in a cooperating country that will enforce acceptable local law. And his own country, where he resides, and where the did the purported crimes.
    - Blot2882 2y ago
      > The point being why should any argument in this line end up with “lets extradite him to the US” Because New Zealand is willing to and he broke the law in the U.S. as well? Why would there be an argument at all? You were criticizing someone's argument and brought up two points of your own that don't make sense to me. Drug cartel members DO get extradited.
nottommo 2y ago
No because they have committed serious violent crimes. Human trafficking is not the same as enabling and profiting from internet piracy.
- anothernewdude 2y ago
  What about the wire fraud and money laundering that he's actually accused of?

gexla 2y ago

His choice was to build a lucrative service off U.S. consumers, knowing the service's popularity was in pirating content, mostly created in the U.S.