Extradition

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When should we allow extradition?

Why, what have you heard?

[Audley Strange]

Another thing, why are we not allowed to evict one troublemaking tosspot because the country we'd be shipping him off to uses torture which apparently we find abhorrent, yet we are allowed to evict another trouble-making tosspot to a nation that kills some of it's prisoners, which we apparently find abhorrent?

[mistermack]

When should we allow extradition?

Why, what have you heard?

I've heard that you haven't been paying your tea taxes.
That makes the lot of you liable to extradition.

I'm just watching a programme on coastal wolves in the cascades I think. Grizzly Bears too.
They got film of wolves catching salmon, and just eating the brains. They can't be that hungry.

They just mentioned that Obama's administration has just passed a law allowing hunting of wolves again in Montana and Idaho.

Those fuckers will do anything for a vote.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Feds delist a species, handing control over to the state. The state either does a good job and the animals prosper, or they don't and the critters get relisted.

[Warren Dew]

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?

Given murder is a state level crime in the U.S., yes, you can get extradited for something that isn't a federal crime. Normally the U.S. doesn't extradite for things that are not crimes somewhere in the U.S., though.

Of course, the last time this administration got upset at someone allegedly "promoting terrorism" on the internet, they just assassinated him with a cruise missile without bothering with the legal details. At least they're sort of following due process this time.

[mistermack]

Given murder is a state level crime in the U.S., yes, you can get extradited for something that isn't a federal crime. Normally the U.S. doesn't extradite for things that are not crimes somewhere in the U.S., though.

That's what I'm getting at though. I don't think we in the UK should allow extradition on a charge that isn't universal in the US. If New York, say, decides that something isn't a crime, why should we extradite someone, just because Texas says it is? (which apparently is now going to include annoying someone on the net).

On this guy's supposed "crime", which clearly wasn't a crime in the UK, I remember very well a few years ago, when people were openly collecting money on the streets in New York and Boston, for the IRA, and holding fundraising dinners and concerts. This was money to finance the killing of British soldiers and innocent civilians.

There was NEVER any question of anybody getting extradited from the US for supporting the terrorists.

The british courts are a disgrace, for allowing this to go on for seven years. Especially for holding this guy in custody.

[HomerJay]

The british courts are a disgrace, for allowing this to go on for seven years. Especially for holding this guy in custody.

It's not the british courts, unless you're saying that when the euro court delays an appeal the british courts should release people???

Anyhoo, they've lost their euro cases, delayed for 3 months in case they want to euro appeal .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17662054

The US authorities accused Mr Ahmad of running an important pro-jihad website called Azzam.com. During the 1990s and early 2000s the English-language website played a key role in encouraging young Muslims in the West to support Mujahideen causes in Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan.

The US accuses him of providing material support to terrorists, money laundering through the website and plotting with US nationals. He is accused of receiving classified US Naval plans.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17657814#s ... icRSS20-sa

[mistermack]

The british courts are a disgrace, for allowing this to go on for seven years. Especially for holding this guy in custody.

It's not the british courts, unless you're saying that when the euro court delays an appeal the british courts should release people???

Anyhoo, they've lost their euro cases, delayed for 3 months in case they want to euro appeal .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17662054

The US authorities accused Mr Ahmad of running an important pro-jihad website called Azzam.com. During the 1990s and early 2000s the English-language website played a key role in encouraging young Muslims in the West to support Mujahideen causes in Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan.

The US accuses him of providing material support to terrorists, money laundering through the website and plotting with US nationals. He is accused of receiving classified US Naval plans.

I think you've got what I'm about wrong.
I don't give a toss about these individuals. I just don't like the law being bent by governments like this.
Abu Hamsa seems to have a case to answer, about activity in the US.
He's already been convicted in the UK of various offences.

What I'm against is this Babar Ahmad being held for nearly eight years, without even being charged, and with the various agencies declaring that there is no offence that he can be charged with here in the UK. Quite simply, he should not be in custody. If the US want to extradite him, he should be on bail, and they should demonstrate that terror suspects get a fair trial in the US. But they can't do that, because they don't.

The US courts will convict anybody, on the basis that if they are charged, they must be guilty.

Of course I don't object to terrorists getting justice. But using extradition to America to get convictions that can't be got here is clearly wrong. That is NOT what extradition is for.
It's for bringing to justice people who commit crimes abroad.

This is a new class of crime. You can commit a crime in the US, while never leaving the UK.
Normally, being tried abroad is because you travelled abroad. You take that chance, if you get on a plane or boat. You put yourself in the jurisdiction of the foreign country, so you have to live with the consequences of that.
But this is stretching the role of extradition way beyond what it originally brought in for.

You have to have a legal framework to deal with crimes committed from a distance.
But just sending people off, on a simple request from a foreign country, isn't justice.

Especially as many of these crimes are political in nature, not simply criminal. So you are sent abroad alone, facing the might of the security services of a foreign country on your own. Basically, no innocent person would stand a chance against those odds.

Political offences are already treated differently. When I said that our courts are a disgrace, I meant in the way this guy has been treated. No murderer or rapist has ever been held that long in custody without even a charge. He should have been given bail after a couple of weeks.
The courts have just been patsies for the Home Office.
So much for our "independent" legal system.

[HomerJay]

The british courts are a disgrace, for allowing this to go on for seven years. Especially for holding this guy in custody.

It's not the british courts, unless you're saying that when the euro court delays an appeal the british courts should release people???

Anyhoo, they've lost their euro cases, delayed for 3 months in case they want to euro appeal .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17662054

The US authorities accused Mr Ahmad of running an important pro-jihad website called Azzam.com. During the 1990s and early 2000s the English-language website played a key role in encouraging young Muslims in the West to support Mujahideen causes in Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan.

The US accuses him of providing material support to terrorists, money laundering through the website and plotting with US nationals. He is accused of receiving classified US Naval plans.

I think you've got what I'm about wrong.

Nope. I've got it right, although you've added the bit about 'no fair trials in the colonies'.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

You can be extradited from one US State to another for violation of a state law. For example, if you commit murder, theft, assault, battery or whatever in Florida, and flee to New York, you can be arrested in New York and extradited to Florida.

The reason your nephew was not extradited was probably prosecutorial discretion. It may have been deemed more trouble than a minor crime was worth, or perhaps they didn't have enough proof to think it was worthwhile, or whatever. But, he could technically have been extradited.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

That is basically it. The nation that wants to prosecute requests, and the holding nation responds to the request.

There are reasons why extradition might be refused. Often a country won't extradite a suspect unless the requesting country waives the death penalty (if the crime might have death penalty punishment attached), or if there is a risk of inhumane treatmaent or other violations of international law.

Of course, there is an ongoing debate in international law circles about extrajudicial "kidnapping" to get around extradition treaties. There are some Supreme Court cases, like the Alvarez-Machain case addressing this, where the US sends someone to Mexico and just goes ahead and grabs a suspected drug kingpin or major dealer, and takes them back to the US. They did this because the Mexican government is corrupt and they can't get extradition in many cases. There have been issues addressed in various courts as to whether extradition treaties are a means of acquiring someone from another country, or whether they are just one means.

[Coito ergo sum]

Given murder is a state level crime in the U.S., yes, you can get extradited for something that isn't a federal crime. Normally the U.S. doesn't extradite for things that are not crimes somewhere in the U.S., though.

That's what I'm getting at though. I don't think we in the UK should allow extradition on a charge that isn't universal in the US. If New York, say, decides that something isn't a crime, why should we extradite someone, just because Texas says it is? (which apparently is now going to include annoying someone on the net).

That Texas law will not get passed as is. It's just a sloppy bill, that modeled itself off of telephone harassment laws, and whoever wrote it did not fully analyze the consequences. It will also not be enforceable as to general crap posted on the internet and will likely get struck down as unconstitutional if it is passed.

That being said, there is no more reason to only extradite to a US state for federal crimes as there is to only extradite to Europe for EU law violations. We have sovereign states here with their own laws, their own judicial systems, their own cops, etc.

On this guy's supposed "crime", which clearly wasn't a crime in the UK, I remember very well a few years ago, when people were openly collecting money on the streets in New York and Boston, for the IRA, and holding fundraising dinners and concerts. This was money to finance the killing of British soldiers and innocent civilians.

Are you sure it is not a crime in the UK? UK regulation of hate speech and other speech-related crimes is much stricter than in the US. Can you give a link to something providing details about this particular person?

The anti-terrorism law at issue, moreover, was not in force during the IRA times in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, when people were here raising money. Groups like that were not nearly as closely monitored as they are now.

There was NEVER any question of anybody getting extradited from the US for supporting the terrorists.

The british courts are a disgrace, for allowing this to go on for seven years. Especially for holding this guy in custody.

[/quote]

Perhaps. Nothing is stopping them from letting him out, though. Has any explanation been given?

[Coito ergo sum]

Re: my request for links/information above- strike that - I see links above, and I will review. Sorry for the premature comment.

[MrJonno]

Am i right this we don't have enough evidence to charge this guy for what would be a crime on British soil but are prepared to extradite him to the US for the same crime but arent allowed to see any additional evidence?.

Sounds a bit shit, couldnt the CIA or something give evidence in a UK court if they wanted?