You're assuming an extradition treaty doesn't exist (Wakanda signed the Sokovia Accords, T'Challa submitted himself to an international authority after breaking them, and Wakanda was not a complete unknown on the world stage, they've been out of their country before). You're also assuming an extradition treaty is necessary -if Killmonger can order the destruction of Wakanda's most precious resource and T'Chaka can order the summary execution of his own brother then I think T'Challa won't get any problems from ordering a disgraced prisoner be made to stand trial for his crimes in foreign countries.
You're right--I am assuming no extradition treaty. You can be in the UN without having extradition treaties with every single country in it, and likewise, same with the Sokovia Accords. The two don't have to go hand in hand. Wakanda seems like a very private country and while they engaged in international relations, there is no reason to assume that it had a treaty like that with the US. I think once T'Challa revealed Wakanda's true self, countries would take more notice of Wakanda and that could happen, but I am making that no extradition assumption.
When I say there wouldn't be an extradition treaty, I am also assuming that for the sake of peace and family, T'Challa would sentence Killmonger to live out his days as a free man, but must stay in Wakanda. I am not saying he wouldn't have the power to send Killmonger to the US, but I am saying that Killmonger did not commit a crime in Wakanda.
In fact, you do a lot of assuming about what would and wouldn't be 'right' under Wakandan law or tradition, which is incredibly pompous considering we know literally almost nothing about it. The only explicit rules we've ever been told are that there's a king and a council and roughly how the challenge process works, and even then we don't know what, if any, are the legal limits of the King's power, what the specific role of the council is and the rules of the challenge aren't even truly clearly defined either.
It is safe to say that had Killmonger been deemed unworthy due to crimes committed, the challenge should not have been accepted or valid. But since it was, there is no reason to assume that Killmonger was illegitimate. We do know that the king's power is virtually limitless once IN power. More proof that Killmonger did nothing wrong from the moment he set foot in Wakanda.
You, for instance, repeatedly insist T'Challa's victory is illegitimate in the end because he wasn't meant to have the heart shaped herb (not an unreasonable assumption, but the movie only ever says that he's supposed to have his powers removed, not that getting them back voids the challenge) while consistently ignoring the fact that the challenge rules clearly state it is a fight till yield or death, neither of which ever happened, making Killmonger's claim at least as shaky as T'Challa's. What we have is not a clear cut situation at all, it's a blurry edge case which can't possibly be satisfactorily analyzed from any sort of legal viewpoint without first gaining a lot more information about what Wakandan law actually *is*. Only that information literally doesn't exist, because it's just a movie, not a law school case study.
I'm not ignoring that the challenge says yield or death, but the challenge is also supposed to be one on one, and it is safe to assume that cheating would make you the loser. T'Challa cheated. He only survived due to help from others and getting the heart shaped herb, which was explicitly forbidden. If the powers are supposed to be removed, then having them is absolutely a violation. That also is cheating. It isn't a technicality at all--it's a flat out violation of the rules. It's like not dribbling in basketball.
Killmonger's claim was not shaky at all. He won. If you can't accept that, then you are saying cheating is ok, and that's not the intent based on what we saw.
Also, Bucky was given asylum, as far as we can tell entirely in secret, because he was innocent. Killmonger is a proven murderer. It's on tape.
It was within the king's power to do so, and it wasn't THAT secret since quite a few people dealt with him, including children.
is easily one of the most hilariously dumb things I've ever seen written on this forum. How much would the US or the UK really care about one little international terrorist? However could we possibly answer that question with the memories of the last 20 years and the many, MANY individual international terrorists that the US and its coalition partners have systematically hunted down and usually summarily executed via drone or seal team strike. I literally have the playing card deck with a different wanted terrorist's face on every card (including a GREAT many who the general public had probably never heard of at all)...
Calling something dumb only makes your argument weak. Killmonger may have killed a few people, but comparing him to bin Laden or the like is ridiculous. There are murderers. If they flee to a country without extradition, there is little the country where the crime happened can do other than push diplomacy, and if Wakanda didn't want to give him up, there is nothing the US or UK can do. Wakanda had a lot more to offer the world and in reality, the technology and cures for diseases would be far more important than Killmonger.
That's a wildly biased and utterly unprovable assumption, and it's also still entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Killmonger will likely end up in jail. And it's irrelevant to my statement which it's replying to and irrelevant to your statement which I was replying to in the first place.
It's not biased at all. It's not even debatable. Killmonger won. That's provable from the second he threw T'Challa over the waterfall. T'Challa only survived due to cheating. Others helped him. The second fight did not happen under the rules of the challenge, and Killmonger actually specifically rejected the challenge, which was his right. T'Challa led an army of traitors who staged a coup. It was successful.
And everyone accepted T'Challa's victory at the end of the movie and gave him the full respect of Wakanda's ruler, too.
First, they may not know what happened, and second, they may just like T'Challa better. Just because the coup was successful doesn't change that it was still a coup and there is legitimacy issues.
And for all we know, maybe there are a lot of people that ARE upset at how T'Challa reclaimed the throne. It clearly violated Wakandan tradition -- at least based on what we saw in this movie.
T'Challa simply upheld Wakandan tradition when he accepted the duel. And if his country, its people and the world thrived under Killmonger he wouldn't have complained. But that's not the case. Killmonger's entire agenda was 'let's f*** up the world' and T'Challa simply used extra-legal means to protect it. I mean, honestly.... do you believe EVERYTHING that the USA or any other country ever did to stop international terrorists was legal? Really? That's all that T'Challa did. And if anyone had a political plot in mind, it was Killmonger. Everything he did throughout the movie and before was to get the throne. AKA plotting.....
T'Challa did uphold Wakandan tradition, but he did not have to accept the challenge. He could have said no, but he did not. The fight was conducted under the rules of the challenge, winner gets the throne. Killmonger won--fairly. He did not cheat. T'Challa cheated.
Killmonger was the rightful king and acted within his authority. Killmonger's policies may not have been right, but he was within his rights to implement them, and thus, committed no crime.
Wakanda is not a democracy. It's a monarchy, and while one can challenge for the crown, that challenge does not have to be accepted, and even if it is, the fight for the crown has rules. T'Challa violated those rules. Worse, he didn't even win the fight one on one -- his sister helped him with the train. Whether one feels that the coup was justified does not make it any less legal. The better villains always think they are the hero of the story. But on an international level, taking power by force is often met with resistance by the UN.
As for Killmonger PLOTTING to get the throne, that's not illegal. He brought in a top international terrorist wanted in Wakanda just to make an entrance.
Claiming that Killmonger is the victim here is just making nonsensical statements online to get attention. And this is all the attention you're getting from me
That just says you don't have a counter to the argument, which makes sense, since that isn't the case.
The king of Wakanda, Killmonger's uncle, killed Killmonger's father. Whether Killmonger's father was guilty of a crime is not important. Killmonger himself was just a child, and he should have been returned to Wakanda. But T'Chaka just let him rot, and set the events in motion for Killmonger's rise to power. Killmonger was a rightful member of the royal family, and he was just left alone at like 8 years old to fend for himself. That's a victim.
Don't get me wrong--he committed crimes in the US and he committed some crimes in different countries. But he did NOT commit any crime in Wakanda, and was the rightful king.
It is a credit to the film that the T'Challa/Killmonger rightful ruler debate is still going on. The thing about the Black Panther film that it doesn't have a morally right or wrong/good and evil conclusion. Killmonger may be misguided, but T'Challa makes his errors as well. Killmonger's methods may be despicable but as people have mentioned, it is T'Challa that actually breaks Wakandan law--and T'Challa learns from Killmonger in the end. I actually wish there had been a resolution to the film that had both of them survive and agree on some kind of truce or governmental reform.
It's a very strong movie. I also think Killmonger should have survived. I am not sure if I would call this conversation the result of a plothole, but I wonder if it was intentional that people could have these debates.
I can recognize that what Killmonger was doing was morally wrong, but not legally wrong, and the reverse is true with T'Challa.
