“ They said it was overreach for the U.S. to charge a Dutch woman for supporting Somali militants when she had no connection whatsoever to the U.S.”
This is why I found the article interesting and submitted it. I get that sending money to terrorists, no matter how little, is bad, but I also found it baffling that the US can successfully extradite and prosecute a non-citizen for a relatively meager payment, especially when Al-shabaab wasn’t even formally designated a terrorist group in her country.
Providing material aid to a group known to carry out terrorist attacks explicitly against americans(among others) is within the jurisdiction of the US because the US is the group's target. Dutch law is not what the US is prosecuting. Even if the group was named a terrorist group in her country, if it did not attack americans the US has no claim to make but that isn't the case. Similarly, if a person in europe gave aid to snowden they can be charged in the US for aiding a fugitive.
Many European countries have relatively one-sided extradition arrangements with the US (one sided in that the US usually has significantly more rights to demand a transfer of a foreign citizen to the US than vice-versa - such is the benefit of being the USA when dealing with small nations). The dutch do have a US extradition treaty, no idea the terms under which it operates.
UPDATE looks like they did use the extradition treaty to get her to the USA, 7 year process:
I also think its kinda wild to be tried and jailed by a foreign nation for a crime that didn't exist in the country you were in at the time you did it. It raises difficult questions of citizenship/sovereignty etc, even if we can likely almost all agree terrorism is a bad thing.
The Dutch government failed to protect its citizen, that is for sure. The US is in its right to charge her but the laws of her country is what should have protected her. Did she happen to be a minority I wonder?
I didn't open the link when I commented, my guess was right. It's like this anywhere I think an immigrant will always be seen immigrant first citizen last. In the US intel agencies spy on naturalized citizens same as foreigners, they act like a citizens rights don't apply to them.
Digging deeper, as apparently journalism is dead nowadays, the two leaders mentioned in the article resided in the US. This connection is likely what allowed the extradition to go through although I'm not certain on what grounds.
> Prosecutors, though, said $300 can go a long way. In court papers, they said the money could be used in Somalia to pay an al-Shabab fighter’s monthly wages or buy an AK-47 military rifle or a camel.
300 dollars for an AK-47? Yeah right, go visit a gun show
15 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 53.6 ms ] threadThis is why I found the article interesting and submitted it. I get that sending money to terrorists, no matter how little, is bad, but I also found it baffling that the US can successfully extradite and prosecute a non-citizen for a relatively meager payment, especially when Al-shabaab wasn’t even formally designated a terrorist group in her country.
UPDATE looks like they did use the extradition treaty to get her to the USA, 7 year process:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/dutch-national-faces-charges-...
I also think its kinda wild to be tried and jailed by a foreign nation for a crime that didn't exist in the country you were in at the time you did it. It raises difficult questions of citizenship/sovereignty etc, even if we can likely almost all agree terrorism is a bad thing.
A lot of EU countries have the capital in Washington D.C.
300 dollars for an AK-47? Yeah right, go visit a gun show