If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
the stupid extradition treaty
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
i think iwas one of those thinking the 2003 extradition act would be used for white collar crime, and wouldnt be reciprocated by the USA leaving us with an unbalanced extradition system
it's great being a US lapdog
it's great being a US lapdog
0
Comments
Since the UK keeps being fucked up the arse, I can only assume the UK likes it like that.
The extradition treaty is merely an extension or an added paragraph of the special relationship.
Unless it's 'special' as in 'special olympics'.
Yes, the extradition treaty is just one more example in which the US gets what it wants without as much as a whimper from our corageous leaders.
these guys will be chucked in jail when they get to the states ...for around two years before they are found guilty or aquited.
how come ...seeing as the crime they are accused of happened on british soil ...are they being shipped out to a liuving hell in america?
I dunno, maybe the UK wouldn't get away with holding them in jail for the long...
What makes you think they are going to America?
I think it's apparent to everyone the bloke is not a terrorist or dangerous to anyone. And yet he's being sent to the US where he will face trial for some dramatic-sounding charges of endangering national security and assorted bullshit. So he can expect to spend the next 10-15 years of his life in an American jail being raped daily (for this is the norm in the inhuman hellholes US jails are) instead of the 1-2 years maximum would probably get here (or a suspended sentence if it was down to me).
"Oi, Bush! NOOOOO! You may have a large nation with lots of appealing and entertaining television shows, as well as a formidable array of attractive celebrities. You may even have a good film industry and first class music stars too. But, if you think you can come on over here with your size seven cowboys boots and start taking our citizens willy nilly, like some latter day child snatcher, some pide piper leading folks off at gun point to lock them away instead of removing vermin with a pipe, you can go and F*ck off!"
Damn straight! I feel the need to agree with myself!
and as they will be foriegners they will automaticly be remanded for up to two years whilst the trial goes ahead.
it is very difficult to put together your deffence whilst in jail ...and impossible to keep your job and look after your family.
it has already been mentioned in some papers that the evidence against the nat west three is almost non existent.
but ...cos it is associated with enron ...these guys will have to go get arse raped for a couple of years ...and then be found innocent.
something to be ashamed of?
deserving of shit being thrown?
Treaties require Senate ratification, the Irish American lobby is against ratifying this treaty claiming Britain will use it to extradite a few Irish Americans who've funded the IRA over the years.
The US is not really to blame here, Britain is for not suspending the treaty or at least not suspending it in non-terrorist cases.
That said victims of European injustice are rarely reported. Critcs of America in this case if they had any consistency would also be asking how many Britons are in prison inside the EU who have not yet had a trial (and how long they have been held for). EU officials too can come here to arrest British citizens, and keep them imprisoned for up to four years whether guilty or innocent of any crime. There is no presumption of innocence as we we have in the UK.
This is an area where Britain needs to stand up to the EU and the US.
As for the three bankers, one must assume that the conditions of their extradition are such that they will only be put on trial for crimes over which the US govt has jurisdiction.
patently
I haven't seen Dubya or any of his neocon fellow Republicans trying too hard to fight any such lobby and bring a little equality into the special relationship.
Couldn't be more irrelevant to the topic in hand if you tried, but any post in any subject is a good opportunity to divert attention and have a dig at your nemesis the evil EU eh?
The Irish American lobby is particularly influential and with a slim Republican majority and 1/3 of the Senate up for re-election in November neither Republicans or Democrats are going to want to piss them off.
Bush favours Senate ratification, so does Condie but the Bush administration carries little clout in Congress. Congressmen and Senators don't vote according to the party line, the whips are much weaker in the States and Bush has little clout in the Senate anyway these days. He's well into his second term and his administration doesn't even have the solid support of some Republicans these days. Look up powers of the president and separation of powers - point being domestically the president of the US is not that powerful, in a comparative context the PM is significantly more powerful. (Royal prerogative, etc).
I'm pointing out that while you're making a justified criticism of the US on this issue the EU is no different.
The Irish American lobby is particularly influential and with a slim Republican majority and 1/3 of the Senate up for re-election in November neither Republicans or Democrats are going to want to piss them off.
Bush favours Senate ratification, so does Condie but the Bush administration carries little clout in Congress. Congressmen and Senators don't vote according to the party line, the whips are much weaker in the States and Bush has little clout in the Senate anyway these days. He's well into his second term and his administration doesn't even have the solid support of some Republicans these days. Look up powers of the president and separation of powers - point being domestically the president of the US is not that powerful, in a comparative context the PM is significantly more powerful. (Royal prerogative, etc).
I'm pointing out that while you're making a justified criticism of the US on this issue the EU is no different.
this is where i agree its a matter of the UK suspending the act unti US either ratify, or we scrap it
perhaps. Living off other peoples debts is, to me, a moral offence. no more so than the inhaitants of quantanamo - at at least the bunch o' bankers will be able to keep in touch, know they'll face a relatively fair trial, and have a time limit
i think i disagree with everything now.
i wonder if disilusioned will swap names with me ...
thats what i am.
thats my political slogan and the only feeling of belief i have left.
to stop believing isn't good but i stopped anyway.
so we should scrap it on our side
Daily Torygraph campaign to Save the Natwest Three from extradition
And look... Emergency debate in the Commons to discuss the fortunes of the 3 bankers
So I have to wonder: where is the Torygraph campaign (or any other paper's, for that matter) and the emergency Commons session to save the working class, not-terribly-wealthy hacker who is also being extradited to the US?
Ordinary workers, the poor and other ungodly types can be safely handed over to the Taliban for beheading for all the Torygraph cares, obviously...
:rolleyes:
He caused $700,000 worth of damage by hacking into computer systems located in the United States. It's a very different matter and it's right and proper that he faces trial in the US.
There is as much reason (if not more) to extradite the bankers as the hacker. The hacker's crime was committed in the UK too, you know?
I personally would not want to see either extradited to the US. But I find the selective concern laughable and nauseating in equal measures.
As for the newspaper thing, business man can mean anyone involved in business rich or poor.
And what about the unemployed, retired or students? Do they deserve a fair trial in the opinion of the Telegraph, or are they not important enough?