Re: The argument makes me sick
I was indeed referring to the case you mentioned. Our adminstration's handling of that case is considered an outrage by many. It was unreasonable for me to assume that folks here would know that firearms possession is generally illegal in Mexico.
Let's try this another way. Suppose I point a gun at someone & pull the trigger. At what point is the crime? If I miss, it was attempted murder when I pulled the trigger. If I hit, murder occurs when the bullet hits the body. Wherever I go in the world, US sovereignty will hold me accountable if I do something it does not like. (Including sex "tourism".) But the relationship goes two ways--the US exists because of the corporate desire that certain rights of its citizens be protected by it. If I am murdered, I expect a US government to prosecute the offender, and I really don't care who, where, or how it was done to me.
To me, the question about extradition is first who is the victim? and second, "where did the crime occur?" Suppose I, a US citizen, while visiting Canada, contact an Italian (in Italy) to do a hit of a German in the UK via a French BBS. I'm picked up by Mexico. Would there be any outrage if each of the above mentioned countries requested my extradition? I would claim that the Germans and the UK have priority, because of the crime of murder exceeds conspiracy. (Ignore the US rule that would allow me to be charged with murder.) Indeed, I would want a long talk with a lawyer to convince me that the Germans are not the primary party (by a bit).
Does the situation change fundamentally if I send a robot into Canada to set a fire?
What if I'm in the business of exporting illicit goods into a country? I never go there myself, of course.
Times change, and the fact that we are now able to effect real events all over the world from the comfort of our own home means that the various sovereignties might well wish to exercise their own justice on us. In particular, If I seek to injure entities pertaining to some sovereign state, it is really pretty sad if I then squeal "extraterritorial sovereignty" if they request my government turn me over to them for trial. My criminal behaviour was extraterritorial--why much the redress respect territory?
I am well aware of, even outraged at times by, the conduct of my (US) government in the area of computer security crimes. But "bad facts make bad law," and I am concerned that the problematic policies of my (US) government in this area are conflating the important question of primary sovereignty and extradition.
Now for the free speech & supremacy straw men. As I mentioned before, it is for the courts of the entertaining country to decide if the alleged crime meets the threshold for extradition. US & UK courts are going to snicker if Germany (let alone Thailand) would request an extradition for things stated by our citizens from our land. Moreover, even if we were to sign a treaty that we would extradite for such things, the courts would (should) rule the treaty unconstitutional just like they would any US statute that violated our First Amendment. The Supremacy Clause exists to put US treaties and Federal statutes above statutes of the various states, but never above the Constitution itself.