▲ 1692 ▼ Elon Musk ‘Secretly’ Used Starlink To Foil A Ukrainian Attack On Russian Naval Fleet Over Fear Of Nuclear War: Report (www.mediaite.com) submitted 3 years ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 465 comments fedilink hide all child comments What an utter piece of shit.
[–] jarfil@lemmy.world 17 points 3 years ago (3 children) So if you're not an American you're free to sabotage the US as much as you want and it's not a crime? Two points. First, US laws apply on US soil, or to US citizens. If you're neither, then cooperation and extradition agreements apply, if there are any. Second, not sure where you got the "sabotage the US" part from: the request came from Ukraine from the beginning, Musk has been sabotaging Russia by disabling Starlink outside of Ukrainian borders, this was supported by both Ukraine and the US the Ukrainian request was for removing part of the sabotage so Ukraine could attack Russia with Ukrainian drones it wasn't a US request, it didn't involve any US assets, or any US operations Maybe Ukraine should have asked the US, instead of asking a private non-Ukrainian citizen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 years ago First, US laws apply on US soil, or to US citizens. If you’re neither, then cooperation and extradition agreements apply, if there are any. Yup, and the US charges non-citzens that are not on their soil all the time. If they can't get the extradition there's nothing they can do about it unless the person sets foot on US soil, but that doesn't stop it from being a criminal offence or from the person being charged. Second, not sure where you got the “sabotage the US” part from It was an analogy. The person I was replying to seemed to be saying "It can't be a criminal offence because Musk isn't Ukranian" which is nonsense. I assumed they where likely American and used an example of something closer to home to show why that is incorrect. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] RecursiveParadox@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago* First, US laws apply on US soil, or to US citizens. If you're neither, then cooperation and extradition agreements apply, if there are any. No, this is demonstrably false in many areas of law. For example OFAC explicitly targets non US persons and organizations in sanctions enforcement. It is explicitly written into nearly every presidential order authorizing sanctions. I'd be happy to direct you to a few if you like, but you can just pick any from here: https://ofac.treasury.gov permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 years ago First, US laws apply on US soil, or to US citizens. If you’re neither, then cooperation and extradition agreements apply, if there are any. Yup, and the US charges non-citzens that are not on their soil all the time. If they can't get the extradition there's nothing they can do about it unless the person sets foot on US soil, but that doesn't stop it from being a criminal offence or from the person being charged. Second, not sure where you got the “sabotage the US” part from It was an analogy. The person I was replying to seemed to be saying "It can't be a criminal offence because Musk isn't Ukranian" which is nonsense. I assumed they where likely American and used an example of something closer to home to show why that is incorrect. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RecursiveParadox@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago* First, US laws apply on US soil, or to US citizens. If you're neither, then cooperation and extradition agreements apply, if there are any. No, this is demonstrably false in many areas of law. For example OFAC explicitly targets non US persons and organizations in sanctions enforcement. It is explicitly written into nearly every presidential order authorizing sanctions. I'd be happy to direct you to a few if you like, but you can just pick any from here: https://ofac.treasury.gov permalink fedilink source parent