Rate This: 0  0

Rate This: 0  0

The Lib Dems have started a campaign about the US/UK lopsided extradition treaty. Essentially the US can extradite a UK citizen without presenting probable cause. For the innocent, this can mean a multiple year trial (as well as expensive defence)…

Rate This: 0  0

You Brits may not know this but Mexico routinely refuses to extradite murderers without an explicit pledge that the prosecution will not seek the death penalty. Mexico, like most of the civilized world, isn’t into killing people as punishment so it enforces this even though some of the people involved have been the sort that you’d really want to drop down a very deep pit (with extra scorpions). One up for Mexico — they look out for people even if they’re not citizens. Maybe they could teach Blair a thing or two?

Rate This: 0  0

But is there any hard evidence that MPs were being told this? Would Boris go on record as saying so? I can’t find anything in Hansard, though am aware that the legislation did not exactly receive the scrutiny one would have wished.

Rate This: 0  0

At last a politician that does what he promises to do – to promote and protect the democratic and human rights of his constituents.

The actions of Blair and his sycophants towards the US is a disgrace.

Countless times in the past have US Citizens and members of their armed forces have been accused of committing crimes more henious than alleged fraud

The countries where these crimes have been committed have time and again been refused their due democratic process of law because the US protects it citizens from prosecution abroad (Japan, Italy, Germay, Iraq, South Korea to name a few).

When will we recognise the double standards in this and do something about it?

Rate This: 0  0

I think it is more to do with neo-conservatism in general. The US, under either Republican or Democrat administrations see’s itself as a defender of the free world and Western values, however under the current neo-con administration they refuse (and it can be argued this is right or wrong) to submit their troops and their citizens to foreign justice systems (unless you are talking aout some no-good sex offender or other such vermin).

Rate This: 0  0

Thanks for your posts; more understanding of the case is better, but we must understand what the issues at hand are before we can make up our minds. Even the guilty have rights; it is our task as human beings and involved citizens (on both sides of the water) to discover and to respect those rights.

Rate This: 0  0

Imagine that a man inherits a beach house in the Caymen Islands and he decides to sell it. He also decides to ask his son & daughter to help. The son has the house valued and tells the old man it is worth 1 million pounds.(Not the true value but close to it) The father accepts his sons advice and agrees to sell. Next the son & daughter secretly buy the house and in conjunction with estate agents in Texas try and sell it to an American couple for 15 million pounds. They, along with the agents in Texas, provide false documents to back-up this value. The American family agree to the purchase and wire the money, at which point the conspirators split up the money and go their separate ways. Now at no point in this process did the son & daughter leave the UK. Everything was done by fax/email and electronic transfer. Now who do you think has the greater grievance? The father, the American family or the son & daughter and where did the crime take place. I vote the American family and USA!

If after this you still think the NatWest 3 are totally innocent then you are an idiot. I am sorry but you are!. If on the other hand you think that they have a case to answer but due to the technicality that America has yet to ratified their end of the treaty, they should be released immediately then I bow to your greater sense of natural justice. I do ask you to do one thing for me. Next time an Afgan hijacker is set free due to a clerical mistake at the Home Office, or a child pornographer walks because the wrong date was placed on a search warrant, or a police murderer skips bail and leaves the country, I want you to go to your local, buy a pint of their finest and toast the great British legal system with its loopholes & technicalities which have so enriched our lawyers and criminals. Apologies if I don’t join you, I suspect the taste of that pint would turn my stomach.

(I tried to post on another site but with no luck)

Rate This: 0  0

You want the america government to prove their case before we can allow extradition. Do you want this for all suspects or just financial cases?. If these men were murders, rapists, or terrorists would you still demand their release! Remember the man who was extradited for the murder of his wife and child. Nobody spoke up for him and yet the same level of evidence was offered by the americans. I remember no outcry in the papers. No Telegraph campaign. Was this man not innocent until proved otherwise? Was he not a British citzen? Does he not reside in an American prison on remand, waiting for his trial? I say we cannot have one law for business men and another for the rest of us. Extradition is either for all suspects or none. We can’t pick and choose who we think might be innocent or guilty based on a PR campaign.

As to the IRA terrorists. Even if they were extradited, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, they would spend no time in prison. So basically we would be paying for the flights home for a holiday. I suspect the american’s reluctance to sign the treaty has little to do with irish terrorists (a group who George Bush has no time for) and more to do with their own business men and the behaviour of their troops abroad.

Rate This: 0  0