Extradition

[mistermack]

When should we allow extradition?

There is a man in jail in England who's been there for seven years without being charged.
They won't charge him in England, but want to extradite him to America.

His alleged crime is running a website that encouraged terrorism. He did it from England, but apparently it was housed on a US server. Is that good enough reason to allow extradition?

It's an interesting question. Now that we have the internet, where should you try internet crimes?
If a website can be seen all around the world, does that mean you can be tried in any state that has a law against what you post? Or if it happens to be hosted on a disk in Texas, does that mean you can offend some obscure law in Texas, and extradited from the UK or Italy?

Normal common sense would say that if you were in the UK when you post the material, you should be tried in the UK. But that leaves it open to abuse. You could endanger the security of a country, and be immune from any penalty.

But equally, you could post something in the UK, break no UK laws, but the governments could just look around the world, find a state where your material was illegal, and extradite you there. That's also wide open to abuse.

With the US, I would be interested to know if extradition is allowed on federal charges only, or could you get extradited for breaking some law in Texas, which wouldn't be illegal in New York?

It's a complicated area.

[maiforpeace]

When should we allow extradition?

There is a man in jail in England who's been there for seven years without being charged.
They won't charge him in England, but want to extradite him to America.

His alleged crime is running a website that encouraged terrorism. He did it from England, but apparently it was housed on a US server. Is that good enough reason to allow extradition?

It's an interesting question. Now that we have the internet, where should you try internet crimes?
If a website can be seen all around the world, does that mean you can be tried in any state that has a law against what you post? Or if it happens to be hosted on a disk in Texas, does that mean you can offend some obscure law in Texas, and extradited from the UK or Italy?

Normal common sense would say that if you were in the UK when you post the material, you should be tried in the UK. But that leaves it open to abuse. You could endanger the security of a country, and be immune from any penalty.

But equally, you could post something in the UK, break no UK laws, but the governments could just look around the world, find a state where your material was illegal, and extradite you there. That's also wide open to abuse.

With the US, I would be interested to know if extradition is allowed on federal charges only, or could you get extradited for breaking some law in Texas, which wouldn't be illegal in New York?

It's a complicated area.

I believe they will only extradite you from one state to another if you break a Federal law, and even then it needs to be serious enough...my nephew flew the coop to Kentucky after being thrown in jail in California for something like forging a check, and even though it came up on his record later when he got arrested in Kentucky for driving without a valid license, they just let him go.

[mistermack]

I believe they will only extradite you from one state to another if you break a Federal law, and even then it needs to be serious enough...my nephew flew the coop to Kentucky after being thrown in jail in California for something like forging a check, and even though it came up on his record later when he got arrested in Kentucky for driving without a valid license, they just let him go.

That seems crazy. It's an open invitation to some people.
It might be ok for your nephew, but every crime has a victim.
It would bug me, if someone forged one of my cheques, and then just skipped across a state line and got away with it.

[Audley Strange]

When should we allow extradition?

There is a man in jail in England who's been there for seven years without being charged.
They won't charge him in England, but want to extradite him to America.

His alleged crime is running a website that encouraged terrorism. He did it from England, but apparently it was housed on a US server. Is that good enough reason to allow extradition?

It's an interesting question. Now that we have the internet, where should you try internet crimes?
If a website can be seen all around the world, does that mean you can be tried in any state that has a law against what you post? Or if it happens to be hosted on a disk in Texas, does that mean you can offend some obscure law in Texas, and extradited from the UK or Italy?

Normal common sense would say that if you were in the UK when you post the material, you should be tried in the UK. But that leaves it open to abuse. You could endanger the security of a country, and be immune from any penalty.

But equally, you could post something in the UK, break no UK laws, but the governments could just look around the world, find a state where your material was illegal, and extradite you there. That's also wide open to abuse.

With the US, I would be interested to know if extradition is allowed on federal charges only, or could you get extradited for breaking some law in Texas, which wouldn't be illegal in New York?

It's a complicated area.

Indeed it does seem complex. Though a bigger concern to me is what the fuck are we doing locking people up for 7 years without charge or trial? Isn't that the kind of tyrannical horseshit we're supposed to be defending ourselves from?

[maiforpeace]

I believe they will only extradite you from one state to another if you break a Federal law, and even then it needs to be serious enough...my nephew flew the coop to Kentucky after being thrown in jail in California for something like forging a check, and even though it came up on his record later when he got arrested in Kentucky for driving without a valid license, they just let him go.

That seems crazy. It's an open invitation to some people.
It might be ok for your nephew, but every crime has a victim.
It would bug me, if someone forged one of my cheques, and then just skipped across a state line and got away with it.

I don't disagree with you at all...I'm just glad that he has never asked me to harbor him.

What you seem to look past, when you comment about the US, Mistermack is that we are a huge country...California is almost twice the size of the UK, and each state does have different law enforcement.

Years ago my sister forged several thousand dollars of checks of mine...she was a heroin addict. The bank reimbursed me, as long as I was willing to file a police report, which I did, because I wanted her to get arrested...I felt she would be safer in jail than out on the street doing more drugs.

But that's besides the point though...so tell me, do you think it's worth the effort and labor dollars on the part of law enforcement to try to track that kind of petty crime down, especially when the banks are willing to reimburse you? You don't have your 'chavs' in the UK doing that kind of crap all the time that get away with it?

No problem though...I understand you are always looking for some way to criticize the US.

[maiforpeace]

When should we allow extradition?

There is a man in jail in England who's been there for seven years without being charged.
They won't charge him in England, but want to extradite him to America.

His alleged crime is running a website that encouraged terrorism. He did it from England, but apparently it was housed on a US server. Is that good enough reason to allow extradition?

It's an interesting question. Now that we have the internet, where should you try internet crimes?
If a website can be seen all around the world, does that mean you can be tried in any state that has a law against what you post? Or if it happens to be hosted on a disk in Texas, does that mean you can offend some obscure law in Texas, and extradited from the UK or Italy?

Normal common sense would say that if you were in the UK when you post the material, you should be tried in the UK. But that leaves it open to abuse. You could endanger the security of a country, and be immune from any penalty.

But equally, you could post something in the UK, break no UK laws, but the governments could just look around the world, find a state where your material was illegal, and extradite you there. That's also wide open to abuse.

With the US, I would be interested to know if extradition is allowed on federal charges only, or could you get extradited for breaking some law in Texas, which wouldn't be illegal in New York?

It's a complicated area.

Indeed it does seem complex. Though a bigger concern to me is what the fuck are we doing locking people up for 7 years without charge or trial? Isn't that the kind of tyrannical horseshit we're supposed to be defending ourselves from?

Indeed...there must be a thread somewhere around here where the US has been criticized for Guantanamo by Mistermack.

[Thinking Aloud]

Isn't inter-country extradition usually done at the request of the receiving country? I don't think we can force an extradition from the UK (for example) to the US, however if the US wants to extradite someone from the UK, extradition agreements will usually mean the UK would hand that person over. As I understand it, though, it's not a guaranteed thing.

[Audley Strange]

What I'm curious about is what crime has actually been committed, especially considering Mistermack's claim that every crime has a victim? I have no time for backwards misogynistic wankers, but who is hurt by an opinion? "Well it might encourage others." Doesn't seem to me to be enough. This stinking guttercunt of a human has spent 7 years advertising a controversial and radical political opinion.

Now, if there is evidence that prior to his detention his words motivated people into being traitors or terrorists who actually committed criminal offences then yes, there is a criminal case to answer and possible grounds for extradition. However if we are detaining people for tentative reasons in the hope of one day finding something to charge them with and then serving up our citizens or foreign nationals on a silver platter to an allied state for political dissent, then any claim of moral superiority of the West due to it's freedoms is hypocritical.

There is a difference between a political prisoner and a criminal.

[mistermack]

I don't disagree with you at all...I'm just glad that he has never asked me to harbor him.

What you seem to look past, when you comment about the US, Mistermack is that we are a huge country...California is almost twice the size of the UK, and each state does have different law enforcement.

Years ago my sister forged several thousand dollars of checks of mine...she was a heroin addict. The bank reimbursed me, as long as I was willing to file a police report, which I did, because I wanted her to get arrested...I felt she would be safer in jail than out on the street doing more drugs.

But that's besides the point though...so tell me, do you think it's worth the effort and labor dollars on the part of law enforcement to try to track that kind of petty crime down, especially when the banks are willing to reimburse you? You don't have your 'chavs' in the UK doing that kind of crap all the time that get away with it?

No problem though...I understand you are always looking for some way to criticize the US.

Well, what it comes down to is, are laws a good thing, or do you prefer lawlessness.
On the whole, I'm in favour of law and order. But you haven't got that, if laws aren't enforced.
I'm sure some crimes aren't worth a national alert, but that's not how it works. If someone's wanted, and they come to the attention of the police, they should have to answer to the charges.
I suppose you have a problem in such a large country, because it wouldn't be fair to have to travel to New York from Southern California to answer a really minor charge.

I don't know how you get around that problem now, although the day is approaching with video links, where it would no longer be a problem.

But in general re the US, I would say that there ought to be a list of laws that apply in ALL states, and if you break one of those in one state, you are still liable even if you cross the state line. Even if the offences are relatively minor.

I wasn't criticising the US in this thread. It's a new problem, brought about by the growth of the internet etc. I was really applying the question to the entire world, and how extradition should be handled.

[Seth]

When should we allow extradition?

There is a man in jail in England who's been there for seven years without being charged.
They won't charge him in England, but want to extradite him to America.

His alleged crime is running a website that encouraged terrorism. He did it from England, but apparently it was housed on a US server. Is that good enough reason to allow extradition?

It's an interesting question. Now that we have the internet, where should you try internet crimes?
If a website can be seen all around the world, does that mean you can be tried in any state that has a law against what you post? Or if it happens to be hosted on a disk in Texas, does that mean you can offend some obscure law in Texas, and extradited from the UK or Italy?

Normal common sense would say that if you were in the UK when you post the material, you should be tried in the UK. But that leaves it open to abuse. You could endanger the security of a country, and be immune from any penalty.

But equally, you could post something in the UK, break no UK laws, but the governments could just look around the world, find a state where your material was illegal, and extradite you there. That's also wide open to abuse.

With the US, I would be interested to know if extradition is allowed on federal charges only, or could you get extradited for breaking some law in Texas, which wouldn't be illegal in New York?

It's a complicated area.

I believe they will only extradite you from one state to another if you break a Federal law, and even then it needs to be serious enough...my nephew flew the coop to Kentucky after being thrown in jail in California for something like forging a check, and even though it came up on his record later when he got arrested in Kentucky for driving without a valid license, they just let him go.

No, you can generally be extradited between states for felonies in the extraditing state, but only if the act is a similar crime in the state where the fugitive is found. Moreover, one can challenge extradition based both on the charge and the sufficiency of the evidence.

International extradition is way more complicated, for obvious reasons that you mention above. What's weird is that the UK isn't charging him as well, but continues to hold him. If he posted from the UK to a server in the US, and it's a crime in both countries, then he can be charged in either or both countries because "supporting terrorism" happens at the keyboard, and wherever the material is stored.

[mistermack]

What I'm curious about is what crime has actually been committed, especially considering Mistermack's claim that every crime has a victim? I have no time for backwards misogynistic wankers, but who is hurt by an opinion? "Well it might encourage others." Doesn't seem to me to be enough. This stinking guttercunt of a human has spent 7 years advertising a controversial and radical political opinion.

Now, if there is evidence that prior to his detention his words motivated people into being traitors or terrorists who actually committed criminal offences then yes, there is a criminal case to answer and possible grounds for extradition. However if we are detaining people for tentative reasons in the hope of one day finding something to charge them with and then serving up our citizens or foreign nationals on a silver platter to an allied state for political dissent, then any claim of moral superiority of the West due to it's freedoms is hypocritical.

There is a difference between a political prisoner and a criminal.

That's sort of what I'm getting at.
This guy obviously can't be charged with anything in the UK, or you would think they would have done it by now. So they are getting around the law, by getting the US to apply for extradition.
No lawmaker ever intended the extradition laws to be used in this way. It's an abuse of a law that was meant for something else.
But you have to have extradition if you want justice. It's fairly clear-cut in most criminal cases, but the existence of the internet makes the water very muddy, and in this case the two governments are abusing the extradition laws.
This could be just the start, unless something's done.

Edit : Just one more comment. "every crime has a victim" is a generalisation, there are of course exceptions. Conspiracy to murder for example, is still a crime, even if the murder is never carried out.
Incitement to violence or terrorism is of a similar nature. It's still a serious crime.
I'm not saying that this guy is some angel, I'm just commenting about how the law is being misused.

[HomerJay]

There is a man in jail in England who's been there for seven years without being charged.
They won't charge him in England, but want to extradite him to America.

His alleged crime is running a website that encouraged terrorism. He did it from England, but apparently it was housed on a US server. Is that good enough reason to allow extradition?

Are you seriously asking if encouraging, aiding, financing and intel gathering is a good enough reason to allow extradition?

I'd say it was a very good reason, let's ship as many of these cunts out to which ever counrty wants to prosecute them.

The internet hasn't made things much more difficult the laws have been for a long time.

If Peru doesn't allow the importation of frilly panties and I send some there in a parcel, the crime has been committed from my front room but Peru could still ask for my extradition. How long do you think these laws have been in place? That idiots don't realise they are committing offences by setting up in different countries is irrelevent.

The reason this cunt's been in jail for so long is purely because he has tried to exhaust the appeal process, so when people use the emotive argument that he has suffered as a captive without trial, is that a criticism of the appeals process, the euro courts or the UK? Are people saying the appeal process shouldn't exist?

An American cunt has already been prosecuted for this case, so I would have thought the merkins had a good shout to try Ahmad, as the trial may bring out more information relevent to other cases.

[mistermack]

I'm not fighting this guy's corner re what he might or might not have done.
He is however innocent at the present time, never having been charged with anything, let alone found guilty.
Being held for seven years without a charge can NO WAY be his fault. He has every right to fight extradition. If you are claiming that just because the US applies for it, he shouldn't fight it, then that's just a bit silly. That means that EVERYBODY has to accept what's done without question.

In this case, he clearly has a case, or it wouldn't have gone all the way to the European Court. That's not pre-judging it, just saying that it's not clear-cut. It won't be easy for them to rule on.

What's wrong anyway, with trying him here in the UK? That's my point. Why should he be extradited?
The website was loaded from here. It was available worldwide on the net. The only link to the US was that the servers were there.

I have absolutely no idea where the servers are for this site. If they were in Russia, does that mean I should be extradited to Russia, if I wrote something that the Russians didn't like?

[HomerJay]

In this case, he clearly has a case, or it wouldn't have gone all the way to the European Court.

Er, it's gone to the Euro Court precisely because he hasn't got a case.

He's exhausted and been denied any further appeals in the UK, so his only option is the euro court to try to stop it. You don't need a case to go euro.

You need to familiarise yourself with this case and the law a bit more before you can say things like 'he clearly has a case'.

He's generally playing the gullible for fools, his emotive interview with the BBC was alleged to have cost the BBC £100,000. Nice subsidy if you can get it.

[mistermack]

In this case, he clearly has a case, or it wouldn't have gone all the way to the European Court.

Er, it's gone to the Euro Court precisely because he hasn't got a case.

He's exhausted and been denied any further appeals in the UK, so his only option is the euro court to try to stop it. You don't need a case to go euro.

You need to familiarise yourself with this case and the law a bit more before you can say things like 'he clearly has a case'.

Er, duuuuuh,

However, the UK Crown Prosecution Service declared in July 2004 and December 2006, as did the UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith in September 2006, that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to charge Babar Ahmad with any criminal offence under UK law.[14]

I think you're getting a bit confused about what "having a case" actually means.
He has no case to answer in the UK, and that's about as official as you can get.

They are saying that he doesn't have a case to answer here, but they are trying to extradite him, presumably to get a conviction in a country that they obviously feel has lower standards of justice.