Actually, doesnt flixy have it right that the treaty was signed long after. Does this affect things or can extraditions be retroactive? Genuine question .
Printable View
Actually, doesnt flixy have it right that the treaty was signed long after. Does this affect things or can extraditions be retroactive? Genuine question .
Again, you can extradite people to countries you don't have an extradition treaty with.
Again, we've long had extradition to the USA and vice-versa, this is simply a much laxer treaty without any of the traditional checks and balances.
Why did it take so many years for the USA to apply for extradition using a treaty signed 3 years after the crime, which the US has itself refused to ratify. Whichever way you slice it, that is wrong.
Because (as far as I know) when the US first requested extradition, before this treaty was signed, they were denied on the basis that the crime wasn't serious enough to qualify for extradition. (Though, I'll say it again, I bet the UK would feel different if I hacked MI6 and posted their top secret shit all over the 'net. :bored:)Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
There we go, the crime wasn't serious enough for extradition. Mentally ill guy goes looking for UFO information and because of lax IT security is able to hack government files, with no intent of maliciousness whatsoever - yes I can see why its not so serious.
So therefore given that the US has chosen to fail to ratify the treaty, the provisions of this treaty should be made null and void and we go back to the status quo ante - in which he can't be extradited.
If the US wants that to change then it should ratify the treaty itself. Otherwise STFU. Even then, it should only apply to crimes commited after the change in law.
The elephant in the room is the US governments incompetence and hardon for prosecuting those who expose it rather than deal with the problem. What if it had been someone intent on causing harm, rather than harmlessly looking for evidence on UFO's. If it wasn't for Mckinnon that could have happened.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's irrelevant what he was looking for. He found top-secret information and he posted it on the net. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Anyone can claim that - doesn't make it true.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Like I said, I'd bet anything that you guys would be signing a different tune if the shoe was on the other foot, and I'd posted MI6 secrets all over the web.
Christ man, cut that out. No one else is buying the idea that this guy legally qualifies as "mentally ill."Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If its so irrelevant then on what grounds was this determined "not serious enough" for extradition under the laws that applied at the time this so-called crime happened?
Why is the default position that the gubment knows what its doing when it's billed top secret but never elsewhere?
Probably because the former government did want to extradite him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I ask again: why do you think it is reasonable for the UK to bend over for the US demands, if the US refuses to do it the other way around?
No that was the determination of the law of the land at the time, you just said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
If the foot was on the other foot we couldn't use this treaty to get extradition on you because the US hasn't ratified the treaty. Oops, you've proved my point :rolleyes:Quote:
Like I said, I'd bet anything that you guys would be signing a different tune if the shoe was on the other foot, and I'd posted MI6 secrets all over the web.
Don't care whether you believe it or not.Quote:
Christ man, cut that out. No one else is buying the idea that this guy legally qualifies as "mentally ill."
Well so far the UK courts didn't see his condition as a reason not to extradite him under this treaty, so that point is a bit moot. Question is whether the treaty is even valid, and if it is, if it should be revoked, since the US don't honour their side of it.
The UK courts no longer really determine who can get extradited under this treaty, hence the controversy over it. When the UK courts were responsible, they ruled against extradition according to Cain already. That was also the law of the land at the time.
Fine, be like that, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Since it's the current "determination of the law of the land" that this idiot should be extradited, he should clearly be extradited, and you guys who want his extradition overturned should just shut up already, as you're wrong, since it's the "determination of the law of the land." :rolleyes:
So if someone assassinates the Dutch ambassador to the US tomorrow on an American ship off the coast of the Netherlands, and the Dutch government doesn't try to extradite the assassin, the United States shouldn't bother charging the guy with any crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Changes in law should only happen to offences committed after the change and if it can in fact be back-dated in this instance then it can be backdated again.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Is there any logical reason the UK should enforce a treaty the US has chosen to reject? It's not as if we're likely to result in the US not honouring its obligations if we don't honour ours, we already know that the US won't!
Can you read? I said they probably didn't prosecute the guy because they were trying to get him extradited until now. I assume that when they don't, they will do that. An investigation was launched, leading to his arrest, but why would they prosecute him if they were trying to get him extradited to the USA? Which they are trying to do? The guy is on one of his last appeals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
If the Netherlands wanted to extradite the assassin it couldn't happen without recourse to American courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You seem to be the only one talking about the treaty, because it's not really the issue. It's a freaking technicality.
Again, (for the 5th time, or something) your tune would be very different if it were me who the UK wanted me extradited for posting MI6 secrets all over the net. The fact that your argument doesn't hold up (or wouldn't exist) if the shoe was on the other foot is really just pushing me further and further into the "this whole thing is about anti-American bullshit, not any actual sane reason" camp.
There's no such thing as a retroactive extradition. It is a present-state action. From a legal persective, intention and what prompts the intention are meaningless as far as extradition goes. There is no "ex post facto" concern, despite Rand's desperate reaching. I don't understand why he's grasping at straws anyway. Since it's not the courts responding anymore anyway, calling collect over a trans-Atlantic line to blow a raspberry at the people making the request, for the sheer effrontery of referencing a treaty the US Senate rejected, is a perfectly reasonable response to any extradition action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
It is not "a freaking technicality" because if it wasn't for this treaty, which shouldn't exist due to the Senate's veto, then this extradition WOULD NOT BE HAPPENING! The SOLE reason this extradition is happening is because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Secondly the tune would not remotely be at all different. If anyone did that to MI6 my second* concern would be whether MI6 had pulled its finger out its arse and got its security up to date. Thirdly if this had happened to MI6 then THIS TREATY WOULD BE INVALID and you couldn't be extradited to the UK under its terms. So it would be the status quo ante which applied, which in this case means: No extradition.
* First is if there was any terrorist threat - oh no, its just a freak looking for info on UFO's.
You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation. There is zero logical argument for supporting this extradition under this treaty.
Who is supporting extradition under this treaty?
I'm simply supporting extradition.
And, FYI, as Loki's been saying repeatedly, a treaty isn't required for extradition. The actual status quo between the US and the UK is generally to honor extradition requests. In fact, the US did the UK a big solid not so long ago in deporting a couple of white supremacists back to the UK to face charges for "hate speech," something that's not even a crime in this country.
I mean, no offense, but you really don't seem to know much of anything about how extradition between the US and the UK is generally handled, and are hanging a lot of your arguments here on erroneous assumptions about the process. :bored:
Let us try him and you won't have to go to the expense or trouble. I don't see how you lose in the scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
1. I am not a you, I am not from the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
2. You (could) lose sovereignty.
1a. I didn't mean that to be so specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
2a. The US's lapdog is worried about that?
The UK is not the US's lapdog.
Sorry. I thought I might make someone mad with that. Just remembering some of the criticism leveled after Iraq became a debacle and that was a little tongue in cheek. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
There were more claims that Blair was Bush's pushes poodle as I recall ;)