Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
23 Jul 2008, 13:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist act has focused attention on the problems caused by the political offense exception to extradition. Extradition is the process by which one country returns an accused or convicted person found within its borders to another country for trial or punishment. Under the political offense exception, the requested state may, if it considers the crime to be a “political offense,” deny extradition to the requesting state.
Protection of political offenses is a recent addition to the ancient practice of extradition. It is the result of two fundamental changes that occurred as European monarchies were replaced by representative governments. First, these governments began to reject what had been a primary intent of extradition, to expedite the return of political offenders, and instead sought to protect dissidents fleeing despotic regimes. Second, countries began to contend that they had no legal or moral duty to extradite offenders without specific agreements creating such obligations. As extradition laws subsequently developed through international treaties, the political offense exception gradually became an accepted principle among Western nations.
There is no international consensus, however, as to what constitutes a political offense. For analytical purposes illegal political conduct has traditionally been divided into two categories. “Pure” political offenses are acts perpetrated directly against the government, such as treason and espionage. These crimes are generally recognized as nonextraditable, even if not expressly excluded from extradition by the applicable treaty. In contrast, common crimes, such as murder, assault, and robbery, are generally extraditable. However, there are some common crimes that are so inseparable from a political act that the entire offense is regarded as political. These crimes, which are called “relative” political offenses, are generally nonextraditable. Despite the widespread acceptance of these analytic constructs, the distinctions are more academic than meaningful. When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense and about whether terrorist acts fall within the protection of the exception. Most terrorists claim that their acts do fall under this protection.
Nations of the world must now balance the competing needs of political freedom and international public order. It is time to reexamine the political offense exception, as international terrorism eradicates the critical distinctions between political offenses and nonpolitical crimes. The only rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country. The international community needs to find an alternative to the political offense exception that would protect the rights of requested persons and yet not offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability.
12. The author would most likely agree that the political offense exception
(A) has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use
(B) has been used too infrequently to be evaluated
(C) has been a modestly useful weapon again terrorism
(D) has never met the objective for which it was originally established
(E) has been of more academic than practical value to political dissidents
13. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offence exception (lines 62-66)?
(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.
(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.
(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.
(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.
(E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses.
Protection of political offenses is a recent addition to the ancient practice of extradition. It is the result of two fundamental changes that occurred as European monarchies were replaced by representative governments. First, these governments began to reject what had been a primary intent of extradition, to expedite the return of political offenders, and instead sought to protect dissidents fleeing despotic regimes. Second, countries began to contend that they had no legal or moral duty to extradite offenders without specific agreements creating such obligations. As extradition laws subsequently developed through international treaties, the political offense exception gradually became an accepted principle among Western nations.
There is no international consensus, however, as to what constitutes a political offense. For analytical purposes illegal political conduct has traditionally been divided into two categories. “Pure” political offenses are acts perpetrated directly against the government, such as treason and espionage. These crimes are generally recognized as nonextraditable, even if not expressly excluded from extradition by the applicable treaty. In contrast, common crimes, such as murder, assault, and robbery, are generally extraditable. However, there are some common crimes that are so inseparable from a political act that the entire offense is regarded as political. These crimes, which are called “relative” political offenses, are generally nonextraditable. Despite the widespread acceptance of these analytic constructs, the distinctions are more academic than meaningful. When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense and about whether terrorist acts fall within the protection of the exception. Most terrorists claim that their acts do fall under this protection.
Nations of the world must now balance the competing needs of political freedom and international public order. It is time to reexamine the political offense exception, as international terrorism eradicates the critical distinctions between political offenses and nonpolitical crimes. The only rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country. The international community needs to find an alternative to the political offense exception that would protect the rights of requested persons and yet not offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability.
12. The author would most likely agree that the political offense exception
(A) has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use
(B) has been used too infrequently to be evaluated
(C) has been a modestly useful weapon again terrorism
(D) has never met the objective for which it was originally established
(E) has been of more academic than practical value to political dissidents
13. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offence exception (lines 62-66)?
(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.
(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.
(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.
(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.
(E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Reading Comprehension (RC) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
23 Jul 2008, 14:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
IMO
12. Between A/E however I will choose E becuse the author says that "Despite the widespread acceptance of these analytic constructs, the distinctions are more academic than meaningful.
However, in support of A. The author says that "When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense and about [color=#BF0000]whether terrorist acts fall within the protection of the exception.Most terrorists claim that their acts do fall under this protection.[/color]
13.D The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.
If the countries stopped stretching these two concepts to protect or extradite criminals (political or otherwise) then there will be no academic debate or discussion on which crime falls under what classification and crimes would be black or white.
What are the OA's
12. Between A/E however I will choose E becuse the author says that "Despite the widespread acceptance of these analytic constructs, the distinctions are more academic than meaningful.
However, in support of A. The author says that "When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense and about [color=#BF0000]whether terrorist acts fall within the protection of the exception.Most terrorists claim that their acts do fall under this protection.[/color]
13.D The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.
If the countries stopped stretching these two concepts to protect or extradite criminals (political or otherwise) then there will be no academic debate or discussion on which crime falls under what classification and crimes would be black or white.
What are the OA's
.
