Common sense judicial decision for once

[Loki]

I doubt the treaty doesn't have some escape clauses like the one that got this hacker off the hook. I do agree with you by the way that it's remarkable how the muslim was thrown to the wolves, where the white Brit was deemed too frail for the American system of justice.

No extradition treaty is ironclad because ultimately these treaties are unenforceable. The way I understand it, Britain invoked some clause that allows it to not extradite similar people in the future, but unilaterally decided to void the agreement in McKinnon's case.

No the reason I believe he shouldn't be extradited is that he didn't try and harm anyone and all he did was look for aliens, the whole thing is ridiculous!

The reason he looked for aliens is a direct result of his illness and that is why I have opposed this extradition for many years ... long before any claims of suicide risk or anything else came to light. The whole thing should never have seen the light of day in the first place.

Since when is "harming someone" (in the narrow sense of the term you're using it) a necessary component for a crime? Is treason not a crime if it gets unveiled before an assassination/coup? Good luck proving that any specific money that's given to terrorists is used to hurt people by the way.

The Pentagon deserved what it got and is bloody lucky that it wasn't someone else.

Just like women who wear short skirts. After all, not protecting oneself against criminals is a get out of jail free card for those criminals.

Every single thing you made your case on has collapsed. The only possible reason you have for continuing to defend this guy is that he's not Muslim.

Interesting that you'd post the old thread, seeing that it shows that a vast majority of the reasons given for the decision to not extradite back then no longer apply.

[LittleFuzzy]

You can't just selectively apply the law to people you don't like, Randblade. If you have to resort to basically winging it to get a just outcome then it's time to take a closer look at the law.

Except you kinda can in this sort of situation because extradition is not really a direct application of law.

[LittleFuzzy]

That's nice. You have the full right to renegotiate the treaty. You don't have the right to not follow it.

That particular extradition treaty, like most such treaties, is not a blanket agreement to hand over anyone the requesting state accuses of a crime and does not require that the UK do so.

Also, when did the Senate ratify it on our end? Because if it's still not reciprocal than IMO the UK should tell us to stick any requests made under it where the sun don't shine.

[Loki]

That particular extradition treaty, like most such treaties, is not a blanket agreement to hand over anyone the requesting state accuses of a crime and does not require that the UK do so.

Also, when did the Senate ratify it on our end? Because if it's still not reciprocal than IMO the UK should tell us to stick any requests made under it where the sun don't shine.

Yes, I mentioned that extradition treaties don't compel either side to hand over criminals, regardless of the reason. It's remarkably bad faith to refuse to extradite on the basis of criteria that is entirely novel and selectively applied.

Regarding your ratification claim: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...K1U&refer=home

Interesting tidbit from State:

What are the correct numbers of extraditions between the United States and the United Kingdom?

Under this treaty, 130 extradition REQUESTS have been submitted from the U.S. to the UK. Of those 130 requests, the UK has refused 10. Of the remaining 120, 77 individuals have actually been extradited from the UK to the U.S.; and in the other 43 cases, either the case is still pending in the UK system or the individuals returned to the U.S. on their own, or some other circumstance intervened to make extradition from the UK to the U.S. no longer necessary/relevant.

During the same time period, the UK has submitted 54 extradition REQUESTS to the U.S., of which none have been refused. Of those 54 requests, 38 have so far resulted in extradition of an individual from the U.S. to the UK. Of the remaining 16 cases, the individuals either returned to the UK on their own, or some other circumstance intervened to make extradition from the U.S. to the UK no longer necessary/relevant. (No extradition requests from the UK are waiting further processing in the U.S. system at this time.)

http://london.usembassy.gov/gb176.html

[Flixy]

Clearly the US wouldn't want to release the secure data on those servers, the details of anti-gravity, free energy and UFOs would be too much for our little European brains to cope with

Don't need to do that do you? Breaking in is a crime in itself, the data itself can remain classified.

Except you kinda can in this sort of situation because extradition is not really a direct application of law.

Can't should be shouldn't, then.

Loki, those numbers don't mean anything because it could also mean that UK only requests extraditions when they are certain they will get it.

[Aimless]

It would be fun to see what the grounds for refusal usually are.

[Steely Glint]

In the previous thread that Randblade linked to, all agree that as the McKinnon case pre-dated the treaty, the treaty was not relevant to the case.

[Loki]

Can't should be shouldn't, then.

Loki, those numbers don't mean anything because it could also mean that UK only requests extraditions when they are certain they will get it.

And what reason do you have for believing that?

[Hazir]

And what reason do you have for believing that?

Because that could be the case. He thought exactly what I saw upon seeing your numbers. For starters we don't have any reason to assume that US judges are better in the application of international law than British judges.

[LittleFuzzy]

Can't should be shouldn't, then.

"Shouldn't" by what standard? Fairness? Probably not. Is fairness the standard by which we want to/should be interpreting sovereignty and international relations? Kindergarden rules don't really apply.

[LittleFuzzy]

In the previous thread that Randblade linked to, all agree that as the McKinnon case pre-dated the treaty, the treaty was not relevant to the case.

I most certainly did not agree to that in the previous thread. I said ex post facto didn't apply but indicated it wasn't necessary to object to the extradition request.

[Loki]

Because that could be the case. He thought exactly what I saw upon seeing your numbers. For starters we don't have any reason to assume that US judges are better in the application of international law than British judges.

Lots of things could be the case. You need evidence for anyone to take the claim seriously.

[Hazir]

Lots of things could be the case. You need evidence for anyone to take the claim seriously.

That being the case, you sort of lost the argument when you tried to imply that the figures you provided actually meant anything.

[Flixy]

Lots of things could be the case. You need evidence for anyone to take the claim seriously.

Thanks for agreeing me, that was my point. My claim is just as well founded in evidence as yours, at least with what you posted here. Numbers by themselves are meaningless.