One way to address farmers actually destroying produce being shipped through an EU member state – not a problem specific to Poland – might be to pay for any losses out of Common Agricultural Policy subsidies to the country in question.
That’d disincentivize destruction and avoid the losses to transport companies if it does occur.
Some might not make it, and some I suppose they can find a way or another. Have someone who is going back to Russia drive it back or something.
Here’s an American soldier who looted Hitler’s phone book, one of Hitler’s tapestries, a stainless steel serving tray of Hitler’s, a sheet and blanket from Hitler’s bed, some awards presented to Hitler by the mayors of some German towns, and some of Hitler’s wine glasses, plus a sword from Goering’s house:
I pulled a sheet off Hitler’s bed, wrapped my loot in it, and threw it over my shoulder. As we started to head down the mountain a couple of newspaper reporters and several more American soldiers arrived at The Eagle’s Nest.
By the time I got my loot down the mountain most of the wine glasses with Hitler’s initials on them were broken. People have asked how we got all the stuff home. Two of the lieutenants in our battalion were being reassigned directly to the war in the Pacific. We used their foot lockers to get the stolen stuff back to the USA.
I wonder if the subsidies necessarily make sense as structured.
Increasing tree cover in a distributed fashion might help slow the rate of water runoff or increase the rate of carbon storage.
But they aren’t going to be ideal from a habitat standpoint. Instead of having 10% of land on each farm converted to trees, it’d maybe be better to have 10% of farms, chosen in contiguous blocks, converted to forest. Like, have the government offer to buy farms adjacent to existing woodland to expand it.
googles
It looks like there’s a separate initiative to create contiguous woodland in Wales:
The National Forest for Wales (Welsh: Coedwig Genedlaethol i Gymru) is a long-term forestation programme by the Welsh Government, aiming to form a network of woodland throughout Wales.[2]
I generally agree with your broader message, but not this sentence:
You don’t get to violate a law and then claim protections of that law itself.
Someone violating a law does not remove them from protection provided by that law. Someone who commits rape, for example, does not have legal protection against themselves being raped removed.
EDIT: As trivia, though, there are mostly-historical cases where people can have the protection of the law removed from them:
An outlaw, in its original and legal meaning, is a person declared as outside the protection of the law. In pre-modern societies, all legal protection was withdrawn from the criminal, so anyone was legally empowered to persecute or kill them. Outlawry was thus one of the harshest penalties in the legal system. In early Germanic law, the death penalty is conspicuously absent, and outlawing is the most extreme punishment, presumably amounting to a death sentence in practice. The concept is known from Roman law, as the status of homo sacer, and persisted throughout the Middle Ages.
Hostis humani generis (Latin for ‘an enemy of mankind’) is a legal term of art that originates in admiralty law. Before the adoption of public international law,[when?] pirates and slavers were already held to be beyond legal protection and so could be dealt with by any nation, even one that had not been directly attacked.
A comparison can be made between this concept and the common law “writ of outlawry”, which declared a person outside the king’s law, a literal out-law, subject to violence and execution by anyone. The ancient Roman civil law concept of proscription, and the status of homo sacer conveyed by proscription may also be similar.
Perhaps the oldest of the laws of the sea is the prohibition of piracy, as the peril of being set upon by pirates, who are not motivated by national allegiance, is shared by the vessels and mariners of all nations, and thus represents a crime upon all nations. Since classical antiquity, pirates have been held to be individuals waging private warfare, a private campaign of sack and pillage, against not only their victims, but against all nations, and thus, those engaging in piracy hold the particular status of being regarded as hostis humani generis, the enemy of humanity. Since piracy anywhere is a peril to every mariner and ship everywhere, it is held to be the universal right and the universal duty of all nations, regardless of whether their ships have been beset by the particular band of pirates in question, to capture, try by a regularly constituted court-martial or admiralty court (in extreme circumstances, by means of a drumhead court-martial convened by the officers of the capturing ship), and, if found guilty, to execute the pirate via means of hanging from the yard-arm of the capturing ship, an authoritative custom of the sea.
A pretty likely outcome here is that he goes to the US, gets sentenced, and it turns out that he would have long-since been out of prison had he not spent all the time on the lam more-or-less cooped up; that a lot of the effective sentence will have been one he created himself by going on the run.
Maybe he can get some of that counted as time served – I dunno if the time spent in the UK in prison doing appeals against extradition counts – but the time hanging out in the Ecuadorian embassy definitely doesn’t.
EDIT: This is talking about Florida state law, but it sounds like it’s not entirely-guaranteed either way; if federal law works as Florida law does, he might get credit for some of the time served in British prison:
Credit for Time Served While Awaiting Extradition to the U.S.
In Calafell v. State, 263 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), the court considered whether a person should receive additional credit for time spent in custody in an Argentine jail awaiting extradition to Florida to face charges.
Section § 921.161(1), Fla. Stat., provides:
“A sentence of imprisonment shall not begin to run before the date it is imposed, but the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time she or he spent in the county jail before sentence. The credit must be for a specified period of time and shall be provided for in the sentence.”
In Kronz v. State, 462 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla. 1985), the court held that although section 921.161(1) requires a trial judge to give credit for time served in Florida county jails pending disposition of criminal charges, it does not require awarding such credit for time spent in jails in other jurisdictions.
The court noted that “[t]he trial judge does, however, have the inherent discretionary authority to award credit for time served in other jurisdictions while awaiting transfer to Florida. In this latter circumstance, the trial judge should consider the appropriateness of an award of credit for time served when the defendant was incarcerated in another state solely because of the Florida offense for which he or she is being sentenced.” Id.
EDIT 2: Here’s a ruling on California law on intrastate extradition. According to this, California apparently does grant credit for time served while fighting extradition under specific conditions, but also says that this is probably not something that most states would permit:
§50.44 J. Credit for Time in Custody Awaiting Extradition
A defendant who has been in custody in another jurisdiction because of an untried charge in California, when finally tried and sentenced in California, is entitled to credit for presentence time served even though he or she resisted extradition, if the presentence time served in the other jurisdiction was for the same offense for which the defendant was convicted in California. In re Watson (1977) 19 C3d 646 (defendant granted credit for 285 days under Pen C §2900.5 for presentence time spent in Texas jail fighting extradition to California). If the defendant was in custody in the other jurisdiction for related and unrelated offenses, California must grant credit only for time served if the defendant was arrested first on the California warrant. In re Joyner (1989) 48 C3d 487 (no credit for time served because California hold put on defendant after he was arrested in Florida for crime allegedly committed there).
Defense counsel should be cautioned, however, that Watson is not binding on other states and probably represents a minority view. This should be considered in deciding whether to resist extradition, because the fugitive may be doing “dead time” in California while he or she is fighting extradition to another state. When the fugitive faces very serious charges in the demanding state, defense counsel in California should contact the attorney or agency who will represent the defendant in the demanding state and find out what the law is in that state on credit for time served, and factor that into the decision of whether and how to resist extradition.
There are a few laws – such as child sex tourism performed by US citizens abroad – where the US asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction (in that case, because wealthy US citizens discovered that they could just go to countries with corrupt law enforcement/judiciary and buy them off; even if they can beat the local justice system, the American one will go after them using American anti-child-sex-tourism law). Same thing for some anti-terrorism laws. My bet is that this is probably one of those.
The United States’ indictment alleges that Assange committed one count of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) to commit computer intrusion in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (18 U.S.C. § 1030).
A brazen and sophisticated computer intrusion into the records of over 145 million Americans launched from computer hackers based in China led to recent criminal prosecutions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. [1] Courts are willing to extend American law beyond U.S. boundaries often when criminal misconduct takes place overseas that injures Americans. The Constitution grants Congress broad powers to enact laws with extraterritorial scope.[2] The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (“CFAA”), is one such statute that provides criminal and civil remedies resulting from unauthorized access to computers used in interstate commerce or communications.[3] And, it further provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction for criminal or civil violations of the CFAA.
The CFAA’s potential reach goes beyond U.S. borders and packs a jurisdictional punch that will likely be able to bring a foreign party into an American court. Thus, a computer hacker outside the U.S. who causes injury[26] here is likely not immune from a civil or criminal action.
The indictment includes one count of conspiracy to hack a computer to disclose classified information that “could be used to injure” the U.S. According to the indictment, Assange “conspired” with Manning by helping her crack a Defense Department computer password in March 2010 that provided access to a U.S. government network that stored classified information and communications.
Hmm. That does raise some interesting questions, though. Assange was charged with conspiracy to violate the CFAA. The justification for the CFAA being extraterritorial would be that you can access computers across international lines. In theory, Assange might have conspired with people in the US to commit murder, and I don’t think that that would have applied. I wonder if there’s some sort of doctrine where conspiracy to commit a crime has extraterritorial jurisdiction apply if it would apply to the original crime.
In addition, courts have reasoned that ‘the extraterritorial reach of an ancillary offense such as conspiracy is coterminous with that of the underlying statute’.
Nah, Manning actually got charged with a lot more than Assange did; Manning was a serving member of the military and violated military law. And even in Manning’s case, the sentence was commuted to 7 years.
The trial on the 12 remaining charges began on June 3, 2013.[5] It went to the judge on July 26, 2013, and findings were rendered on July 30.[6][7] Manning was acquitted of the most serious charge, that of aiding the enemy, for giving secrets to WikiLeaks. In addition to five[8][9] or six[10][11][12] espionage counts, Manning was also found guilty of five theft specifications, two computer fraud specifications and multiple military infractions.[13]
On August 21, 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment, reduction in pay grade to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge.[14] On January 17, 2017, President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence to a total of seven years’ confinement. Manning was released on May 17, 2017.[15][16] On May 31, 2018, the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Manning’s conviction of violating the Espionage Act of 1917.[17]
The expected sentence is probably about five years, whereas Assange has already been spent considerably more than that as a fugitive (and some of that time cooped up). US prosecutors apparently estimated that he’ll probably get between 48 and 63 months based on prior sentences.
The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison, although Lewis said “the longest sentence ever imposed for this offense is 63 months.”
The country where he is located Ecuador. That’s how embassies work. He is on Ecuadorian soil
That is not true, though it’s a common misconception. Embassies are not extraterritorial. They are granted specific legal protections by treaty by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that prevents the host country’s law enforcement from entering and arresting people, but the territory on which they are located does not belong to the guest country.
The ability to provide asylum in an embassy is based on this text:
The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
The only case I can think of off-the-cuff where territory was explicitly made extraterritorial was during World War II. The Dutch royal family had fled abroad due to the Netherlands being occupied by the Nazis, and Princess Margriet was born there. I vaguely recall that there is some restriction in Dutch law that requires a member of the royal family to be born on native Dutch soil to remain in the line of royal succession or something like that.
The Canadian parliament passed a law to, for a brief period of time, render the maternity ward of the hospital in which Princess Margriet was to be born, Dutch territory.
googles
Actually, looks like I misremembered that. According to Wikipedia, even in that case, they didn’t declare it to be Dutch territory, just to not be part of Canada:
The Dutch royal family went into exile when the Netherlands was occupied by Nazi Germany in 1940, and went to live in Canada. Margriet was born in Ottawa Civic Hospital, Ottawa. The maternity ward of the hospital was temporarily declared to be extraterritorial by the Canadian government.[3][4] This ensured that the newborn would not be born in Canada, and not be a British subject under the rule of jus soli. Instead, the child would only inherit Dutch citizenship from her mother under the principle of jus sanguinis, which is followed in Dutch nationality law. Thus, the child would be eligible to succeed to the throne of the Netherlands. This would have applied if the child had been male, and therefore heir apparent to Juliana, or if her two older sisters died without eligible children.
It is a common misconception that the Canadian government declared the maternity ward to be Dutch territory. That was not necessary, as Canada follows jus soli, while the Netherlands follows jus sanguinis. It was sufficient for Canada to disclaim the territory temporarily.
The European Union's top diplomat, Josep Borrell, said at a Feb. 19 conference that he urged member states to procure ammunition for Ukraine outside the bloc if this source of supply is "better, cheaper, and quicker."
I’d rather avoid editorialization. Would rather have opinions go in a top-level comment.
I think that it’s useful from a context standpoint if the subtitle or first sentence or paragraph of an article provides a good summary of what the article is about.
According to a Russian news outlet, Alexei Navalny's body is now in a morgue, but no post-mortem examination has yet been performed. The same media organisation also cites an inmate who described a "mysterious commotion" on the night before his death was announced.
I suppose that historically, this sort of thing was kind of the norm for rulers. Oppose the king/emperor/etc, wind up in prison and/or dead. Lèse-majesté. The original meaning of treason.
In Russia of 2024, at least there’s still the need to pretend; the government doesn’t feel the freedom to openly have political opponents killed.
A Utah lawmaker is no longer pushing for public schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments but wants to add other biblical precepts and the Magna Carta to the curriculum.
Donald Trump wants to make South Carolina the end of the road for Nikki Haley in their battle for the Republican nomination. Haley aims to survive and take their fight into the multistate Super Tuesday contest in March....
Whether a pardon is a good idea or not, I don’t think that liking someone and pardoning them should really be linked, not if one is using the power properly. Should be a question of national interest.
Polish farmers dump grain in protest as Ukraine dispute deepens (www.theguardian.com)
Volodymyr Zelenskiy accuses Warsaw of ‘mockery’ as farmers blockade Ukrainian grain at border
Russian soldiers loot apartments damaged by shelling and abandoned by civilians in Sievierodonetsk. (streamable.com)
t.me/pravdaGerashchenko_en/30802...
Mark Drakeford: Not up to farmers to decide how subsidies spent (www.bbc.co.uk)
Wales’ outgoing first minister has defended plans to ask farmers to plant trees on their land in return for cash....
Julian Assange: Wikileaks founder in last-ditch bid to avoid US extradition (www.bbc.com)
Borrell: EU member states can procure ammunition for Ukraine outside the bloc (kyivindependent.com)
The European Union's top diplomat, Josep Borrell, said at a Feb. 19 conference that he urged member states to procure ammunition for Ukraine outside the bloc if this source of supply is "better, cheaper, and quicker."
What do you think of posts that are only a link?
Should all posts include a thought, opinion, or summary from the OP? Is a post title usually enough?...
Alexei Navalny's body 'in morgue' as inmate describes 'mysterious commotion' - Russian news outlet (news.sky.com)
According to a Russian news outlet, Alexei Navalny's body is now in a morgue, but no post-mortem examination has yet been performed. The same media organisation also cites an inmate who described a "mysterious commotion" on the night before his death was announced.
Utah House committee approves Ten Commandments bill despite constitutional concerns (www.ksl.com)
A Utah lawmaker is no longer pushing for public schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments but wants to add other biblical precepts and the Magna Carta to the curriculum.
What's at stake for Trump, Haley in South Carolina's primary (www.reuters.com)
Donald Trump wants to make South Carolina the end of the road for Nikki Haley in their battle for the Republican nomination. Haley aims to survive and take their fight into the multistate Super Tuesday contest in March....