I’ve just finished reading about the death of Scott Norberg and, to be honest, I’m lost for words. I feel a strangely potent mix of numbness and outrage, but I have no way to express it.

One thing I can say is that there is no way this should have been an insurance payout; people should be doing time for murder.

This speaks for itself really. How can anyone who claims to stand for freedom, democracy and human rights, veto a democratically passed law that would have prevented innocent people from being tortured? I think we all know the answer.

The guy makes my skin crawl.

Well this is somewhat heartening; it seems like pretty much everyone agrees with me on the recent statement from Dr Rowan Williams, that the UK should adopt aspects of Sharia Law.

This also neatly demonstrates something I’ve been saying for a while; The UK really is a much more secular nation that the US, state religion notwithstanding. British people tend to know this, but some (by no means all) Americans seem to labour under the impression that the Church here is actually wields some real power. This is the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England, and yet pretty much everyone in government has come out and publicly criticised him for speaking rubbish. Can you imagine the US president speaking out against a religious leader like this?

The White House has indicated that the president is likely to use his veto to block legislation outlawing employment discrimination based on sexual preference, because – get this – it would infringe the religious freedoms of employers, and thus be unconstitutional.

If you’re thinking that argument sounds familiar, it is. It’s the exact same argument used by many religious people to oppose similar modifications to the UK’s Provision of Goods and Services Act late last year. Of course, that was a group of religious protesters that no-one took particularly seriously, whereas this is the most powerful man in the world, and while they held a torch-light vigil and prayed a lot (with predictably negligible result,) the president actually has the power to prevent the law passing.

It’s depressing.

Linked from Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

I know it might sound like obvious advice, but reading this really hammers the point home. Basically, it looks like they’ll convict (and execute, this is Texas, remember) you for a murder committed by someone you were with. I really wonder how they keep a straight face when they call themselves “the land of the free”.

This is an interesting one. An Australian man, who’s never set foot in the US, and who’s infringing activities all occurred within Australia has been extradited to face trial for intellectual property theft (that is, software piracy) in the US - and has, actually, already plead guilty.

It’s interesting because while the man has clearly done wrong, it’s also pretty clear that the US has no (or should have no) jurisdiction to try him. He’s never been there - everything he did, he did in Australia. Why then shouldn’t it be an Australian court that tried him (as he requested? It’s not like their copyright laws are particularly lax.

The reason, as far as I can see, is quite simple. The US has had enough of those other countries and their different laws getting in the way of it perusing it’s own commercial interests and is looking to establish its own laws (and courts) as the de facto global standard. This is a pretty safe precedent case for them, since the suspect is clearly guilty, and what he did was illegal in his home country anyway, but that shouldn’t lessen the worry the world feels about this result. Why should we, as non US nationals - outside the US - have to worry about whether our activities are legal by US standards?

It’s not even like they’re trying to hide their agenda; US Assistant Attorney-General Alice Fisher has said

This extradition represents the (US) Department of Justice’s commitment to protect intellectual property rights from those who violate our laws from the other side of the globe.

As though it goes without question that they have the right to enforce their laws on the other side of the globe. I’m usually pretty reluctant to use the phrase US-imperialism, but to me this sure looks like a spade.

Obviously, it’s a long way from “that bad” yet. This one case doesn’t establish a precedent, and even if it did it wouldn’t need to influence the actions of other nations, but nevertheless we should be wary; every time something like this happens it becomes a little less of an exception, and a little more like normal practice. After the 1,000th extradition of someone the US says has done something wrong, how many people will be outraged about the 1,001st? How long before it’s just assumed that US’s extradition requests are reasonable and above board? How long before other national governments stop even bothering to check?