Chuck Schumer Is Furious At Vladimir Putin For 'Stabbing Us In The Back' Over 'Coward' Snowden

[treestar]

41. since you read that 49 page article, care to state on what page

you obtain the material from which you draw your conclusions?

The political nature of an offense is most evident when the target is the state.(160) Crimes such as treason, espionage, and conspiracy are referred to as 'absolute' political offenses because they are directed solely against the state and do not harm private interests.(161)

this is a distinction being made for purpose of discussion. The term "absolute" is later compared with "relative" and does not mean there is some absolute right not to be extradited.

[73] The ostensible distinction between absolute and so-called 'passive offenses' may be illustrated by reference to the Kolczynski case.(163) Kolczynski and seven other Polish nationals were crew members of a small fishing trawler. Fearing that upon return to Poland, they would be prosecuted on account of political opinions they had expressed while at sea, Kolczynski and his associates staged a revolt, took charge of the trawler and brought it into an English port where they claimed asylum. There was clear evidence that if extradited to Poland they could be punished for treason, specifically, "going over to the enemy".(164) Extradition was refused on the grounds that their offenses were of a political character.(165) Both judgments stressed the totalitarian nature of Poland's communist regime.(166) Essentially, while Kolczynski's motive for the offenses he committed related to his 'passive' dissidence (the expression of his political opinions), the basis of his claim was that if returned he would be punished for treason, an absolute political offense in the classic sense.(167)

It is easy to see that during the Cold War Era, western countries considered communist countries not to have systems for fair trial. It was rational, to us, for someone from a communist country to seek asylum in a Western Country. But it is ridiculous for anyone from the USA to seek asylum in any country. No other country can claim that we would not try anyone accused of espionage as the law provides. I know the HOF brigade likes to claim that, but they are delusional.

Another consideration:

2.4 Fair Trial and Punishment

[84] Supposedly, the political offense exception is premised, in part, on the notion that a political offender will not receive a fair trial and even-handed punishment if returned to the requesting state.(199) Therefore, it is surprising to find only limited reference to the consequences of return in extradition treaties, legislation and case law.(200) Van den Wijngaert observes that the offender's treatment upon return is but a supplementary consideration in many jurisdictions 201)

"It is true, from a logical point of view, that ... [the treatment awaiting a person in the requesting state] should not affect the nature - common or political - of the offense but, as one of the basic raisons d'etre of the political offense exception, it would be better if courts could take it into account. English courts have focused on this element since the Kolczynski and Schtraks decisions and the definition of the term political offense has been supplemented by the idea that attention has to paid to the question of whether the ... [person] risks an unfair trial because he is possibly 'at odds' with the state or with the regime seeking his extradition."

[85] Basing decisions not to extradite on the assertion that the fugitive will not receive a fair trial in the requesting state has proven problematic, perhaps, in part, because it represents a more explicit condemnation of the requesting state than the notion of a political offense alone. Gilbert also notes that 202)

"...within western industrialised society it is hard to conceive of one state refusing extradition to a friendly neighbouring state, partly because of the 'club' mentality of Western Europe, North America and Australia. Indeed, a further problem arises from the fair trial test, in that it antagonises those states outside the 'club' who feel as though their legal systems are being judged by the western industrialised nations, so preventing essential international co-operation."

Whatever you want to say about the U.S., the courts are functioning, and the law develops every day. There is no sane person who would claim that the trial of Snowden would not be held in the courts using their rules and the law of the U.S.A. Yet the same cannot be said of the system in say Saudi Arabia or Cameroon or Peru in the Shining Path era.