Grounds for refusing extradition?

[Ominous Gamer]

You act like the US doesn't ignore such things when it fits the need and comes with little opposition. Along the same shit Fuzzy said.

[Loki]

I would be more sympathetic to the Portuguese position if Portugal actually obtained some benefit from not extraditing the guy. Instead, it looks to be denying extradition just because it can. That's not how you treat your NATO ally.

[Ominous Gamer]

They have something we apparently want. Sounds like they will benefit plenty when it matters.

[Loki]

And we're guaranteeing their security, which is probably worth more than the extradition of a murderer. Sorry, but the implication here that countries ignore international law, particularly that pertaining to treaties, just to obtain some minor benefit is patently untrue. 95% of international law is routinely followed. If you don't follow international law, it's generally because doing so is extremely costly to you, not because you want a million bucks (which I don't think is the case; I think what we're seeing here is either a government or the judge are trying to cash in on anti-Americanism; it doesn't help that the Portuguese left is extremely friendly with Chavez).

[Ominous Gamer]

95% citation please

[Loki]

It's a frequently tossed around number. There's no actual way to measure it. Some obvious examples are the allocation of country codes for telephones, international mail delivery, sea shipping, etc.

[CitizenCain]

The only thing that's not straightforward about these extradition treaties is that countries will look for any excuse at all they can find to void their obligations.

You make it sound like that applies only to extradition treaties and not to every single obligation or promise made by governments.

Anyway, not sure why "we" care. If Portugal wants to have a racist, murdering terrorist hostage-taker stay within their borders and their society, good for them. Saves us the expense of doing something about him.

In fact, I propose that rather than retaliate or get angry at Portugal, we thank them, and send them more of our violent, dangerous criminals we no longer want in our society. They get to win by exercising their sovereignty and keeping them from our jurisdiction, and we get to win by... not getting them back.

[Loki]

In the good old days, the violent, dangerous men we'd send there would be the Marines.

[Hazir]

The only thing that's not straightforward about these extradition treaties is that countries will look for any excuse at all they can find to void their obligations.

Rubbish, there is little as uncertain as the outcome of an extradiction case. And most of the time it has got very little to do with what the administration of a country wants to achieve. I have no doubt the present Portugese administration would happily have handed over the man if the case is as straightforward as it is described in the article.

[Aimless]

Portugal gives its citizens the right to not stand trial for murder?

No I mean for example "the right to not be sent off to another country" (with various qualifiers) and "the right to not be tried for a particular crime after X number of years have passed". After all, most countries do seem to have laws about that, although I reckon most countries exempt murder. Then again, if Portugal is talking about the statute of limitations then perhaps they don't make an exception for murder.

[Aimless]

Btw, he hasn't been tried for the hijacking yet, right? Does that influence the decision?

[Ominous Gamer]

There's no actual way to measure it.

I've got an idea, we start labeling shit like as "Loki's facts". So when someone wants to completely fabricate some random point, no one wastes their time asking where or how. It would help the debates on here move at least 34%* faster.





*Loki fact

[Aimless]

And we're guaranteeing their security, which is probably worth more than the extradition of a murderer.

Is this "tradeoff" even on the table? Give us our murderer or we'll stop guaranteeing your safety?

[Loki]

Is this "tradeoff" even on the table? Give us our murderer or we'll stop guaranteeing your safety?

Of course not, but I'd hope that we earned some goodwill from Portugal for the security, and that Portugal wouldn't jeopardize future cooperation over the extradition of a murderer.

[Nessus]

Of course not, but I'd have that we earned some goodwill from Portugal from the security, and that security wouldn't jeopardize future cooperation over the extradition of a murderer.

Didn't your NATO allies go pretty far to block you from access to chemicals with which to carry out your death penalties? Surely this is a much larger breach of co-operation and trust, never mind a much larger issue vis a vis your domestic security concerns. The base line of co-operation doesn't seem to be near what you seem to expect.

[Flixy]

Extradition should only be able to be denied if there's a massive disparity between the two countries' potential sentences for the crime - e.g. life in prison vs. death penalty (murder), or no punishment at all vs. several years (drugs). However, that is not to be understood as an automatic rule!

I would argue prison conditions are also important, and you forget the most important reason: you need a reliable, independent judiciary. And WRT Wiggin's response: I'd say the reason is that countries consider certain offenses less (or more) harmful than others, and don't think such harsh punishments are fair. I can see the rationale for not extraditing a citizen who has commited a crime that isn't considered a crime in his country. A country considers its own rules superior, I guess.

'His lawyer, Manuel Luis Ferreira, had argued Wright should serve any prison term in Portugal'. I read this line to mean, 'We Portuguese will prosecute him in Portugal'. Else, they'd have to sentence him according to an american trial.

That generally means that they want him to serve the remainder of his American sentence in a Portuguese prison, not that he'd be prosecuted in Portugal. It's done pretty frequently I think, probably to enable relatives and the like to visit, and to avoid harsher prison conditions.

[Loki]

Didn't your NATO allies go pretty far to block you from access to chemicals with which to carry out your death penalties? Surely this is a much larger breach of co-operation and trust, never mind a much larger issue vis a vis your domestic security concerns. The base line of co-operation doesn't seem to be near what you seem to expect.

At least they were morally opposed to the death penalty. I really don't see what Portugal is opposed to in this case.

[Nessus]

Fair enough!

[Khendraja'aro]

I would argue prison conditions are also important, and you forget the most important reason: you need a reliable, independent judiciary.

I implicitly included that one in "potential sentence"

[Echovirus]

At least they were morally opposed to the death penalty. I really don't see what Portugal is opposed to in this case.

Maybe this particular judge is adverse to the idea of handing over an escaped convict whom he thinks will simply escape from an inferior American prison yet again?

[Loki]

Maybe this particular judge is adverse to the idea of handing over an escaped convict whom he thinks will simply escape from an inferior American prison yet again?

He could think whatever he wants, but the ruling must be based on law, and it seems the ruling was based on the guy now being a Portuguese citizen, which is utterly irrelevant to extradition.

[LittleFuzzy]

Btw, he hasn't been tried for the hijacking yet, right? Does that influence the decision?

Conceivably yes, but also no. If a country thinks the basis of an extradition request is a pretext, that the requesting authorities are really interested in getting their hands on the person for some other reason *like a crime which could earn the death penalty* then yeah, having another crime he could be charged with hanging over his head is a possible justification for saying no. The problem there is that there aren't too many things higher on the severity list than murder. A hijacking would have to be fairly brutal for the consequences to be worse than those arising from the murder charge.

[Echovirus]

He could think whatever he wants, but the ruling must be based on law, and it seems the ruling was based on the guy now being a Portuguese citizen, which is utterly irrelevant to extradition.

I agree. I just don't think he cares whether it's relevant or not. And I'm half joking when I ask this, but it's about the only way I can make sense of his blocking the extradition, does this judge have an election coming up?

[Loki]

No idea how the judiciary works in Portugal. The guy could just be an anti-American leftist. There's no short supply of them in Portugal.

[Flixy]

Is there actually an extradition treaty for citizens of portugal? The OP doesn't mention it, and there are plenty of countries who, by principle, do not extradite their own citizens (france too, I think). In that case the issue for the judge was more whether it matters if he was portuguese at the time of the offense or not. If there is no treaty regarding citizens, this the judge is merely following the rule of law. And considering the argument against extradition is his citizenship, that does seem the case. Countries with such provisions do generally have universal jurisdiction in such cases, so a solution where he serves his remaining time from his us sentence in a portuguese prison, which his lawyer suggests, seems reasonable. Also, outrage from the us seems a bit misplaced, considering things like the infamous the hague invasion act, pushing countries not to extradite americans to international courts..

[Loki]

Yes, Portugal has an extradition treaty with the US.

[Flixy]

That includes citizens? In that case, I'm at a loss why they would refuse it on ground of citizenship. The only real reason could be doubt of the fairness of the original trial, but if they had any reason for that they surely would have mentioned it. Or genuine bad health, of course, but again, the stated reason is citizenship..

[Loki]

I don't see why citizenship would be relevant even if there was no treaty; either you're willing to hand someone over or you're not. The article only mentions that the decision was based on the guy's citizenship and the statute of limitation. Hell, the murderer's lawyer wasn't even arguing against extradition as much as he was for letting him serve his sentence in Portugal.

[Asmodian]

You may not see why citizenship relevant yet many countries refuse to extradite their citizens, its a way to insure that their citizens, criminals thou they may be, are accorded the rights due to them according to their countries laws. I read the initial murder conviction and I am quite confident that 7 years he served in jail is probably the maximum he could have gotten in Europe, seeing as he did not actually murder or injure anyone himself. So the already mentioned interpretation that extradition was refused due to the wide gap in the judicial systems could be valid.

Personally I think this is a huge waste of time and money, this guy obviously no longer represents a threat to society, apparently has health issues. His wife and children are also Portuguese nationals and probably rely on him for their livelihood so extraditing him to the US would leave Portugal fitting the bill for those 3.

[Loki]

Someone I don't think you'd be making the same argument if the person in question was a Chechen who was granted citizen in an Arab or European country. Care to know why I make that assumption? Hint: it has to do with your own posting history.