Re: The 1st Amendment Apparently Doesn't Exist in New York Either

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Wed, 1 May 2024 13:16:55 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

What are you talking about? Apprehending a foreign-flagged ship at sea --
merchant, passenger, navy or coast guard -- was an act of war. The British
navy was impressing men into the British navy, and that included Americans.
They confiscated merchandise. They were enforcing a blockade versus
France. There was no lawful jurisdiction to do anything of the kind.

As for 'acts of war' so was refusing to return British citizens to
British custody when requested when Britain was alleging a crime
whereas the US was not. About the only reason why a nation can refuse
to extradite a foreign national to their home country is when they
themselves are holding him for an offence

Wrong

Extradition is a request by a foreign government. It's not enforceable
under international law in the absense of a treaty, because
international law doesn't exist in the absense of a treaty. With an
extradition treaty, the two countries need to be enforcing comparable
laws and to have a comparable sense of criminal justice, else the host
nation will refuse the extradition.

Obviously the laws were rather more loosey-goosey in those days than
now but had Britain diverted a squadron of 74s from the French
blockade the situation at sea would have reversed quite quickly to the
point that every US Atlantic and Gulf port (which is essentially all
of them in 1812) would be either in ashes or blockaded within six
months. Which of course would have infuriated those in Britain who
were profitting mightily over British/US trade.

The laws weren't "loosey goosey". There was no such extradition treaty.
Even if there had been, the United States was not enforcing any
British trade embargo against France as a matter of criminal law.

. . .