This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Not much discussion on UKC, considering all the legal folk on here (unless I've missed it)
They allegedly helped maintain the US' biggest ever fraud, or they are victims of the US' evils scheme to extend the arm of its domestic legal system to cover every citizen on the planet
They allegedly helped maintain the US' biggest ever fraud, or they are victims of the US' evils scheme to extend the arm of its domestic legal system to cover every citizen on the planet
In reply to kevin stephens:
I think the main issue of the extradition is not how awful it is for the Natwest 3, but that the US have rights to take people from the UK but the UK doesn't have rights to take people from the US (various old IRA activists for example).
Personally I think the fact that non of the relevent authorities in the UK wants to prosecute says a lot about the case.
I think the main issue of the extradition is not how awful it is for the Natwest 3, but that the US have rights to take people from the UK but the UK doesn't have rights to take people from the US (various old IRA activists for example).
Personally I think the fact that non of the relevent authorities in the UK wants to prosecute says a lot about the case.
In reply to Wingman@work:
They (the US) also have a right to take them without divulging any details of the charges .They are also using rules drawn up specifically to combat terrorism (where have we heard this before ?). They are also prosecuting actions which appear to have taken place wholly in the UK between UK entities .
It's unbelievable (well actually all too beleivable) that the government can have set up a system that allows this to happen and then does nothing to intervene .
They (the US) also have a right to take them without divulging any details of the charges .They are also using rules drawn up specifically to combat terrorism (where have we heard this before ?). They are also prosecuting actions which appear to have taken place wholly in the UK between UK entities .
It's unbelievable (well actually all too beleivable) that the government can have set up a system that allows this to happen and then does nothing to intervene .
In reply to Wingman@work:
That the USA is a lot hotter on financial crime than us?
The interesting bit is this is supposed to be a two way agreement, but the yanks havent bothered ratifying their half (on the grounds that they dont want their bods being randomly deported).
> Personally I think the fact that non of the relevent authorities in the UK wants to prosecute says a lot about the case.
That the USA is a lot hotter on financial crime than us?
The interesting bit is this is supposed to be a two way agreement, but the yanks havent bothered ratifying their half (on the grounds that they dont want their bods being randomly deported).
In reply to kevin stephens:
Dear kevin
It is a great wheeze, it saves tax payers like me having to keep the crooks in our jails.
It would be better if it was Saudi they were going to, their hands would be cut off.
Norrie
Dear kevin
It is a great wheeze, it saves tax payers like me having to keep the crooks in our jails.
It would be better if it was Saudi they were going to, their hands would be cut off.
Norrie
In reply to kevin stephens:
There was this and a couple of other snatches of discussion:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=189172&v=1#2741454
J
There was this and a couple of other snatches of discussion:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=189172&v=1#2741454
J
It actually sets an incredibly dangerous precedent - if crimes were comitted, then obviously they should be tried by UK law. The fact that we won't try them suggests that we can't see that any crimes (or evidence of any crimes) were comitted.
Does this then mean the US can try any of us for breaking any of their laws, regardless of whether we've broken a law over here? And, as in this case, where the crime was comitted on UK soil?
I think anyone with a modicum of sense should be very concerned.
Does this then mean the US can try any of us for breaking any of their laws, regardless of whether we've broken a law over here? And, as in this case, where the crime was comitted on UK soil?
I think anyone with a modicum of sense should be very concerned.
In reply to dissonance:
actually the fsa are pretty bloody good at financial crime (okay there is the odd mistake but certainly the americans are no better)
America has these phases of 'corporate witch hunts' where they do their damndest to bring a few people down.
actually the fsa are pretty bloody good at financial crime (okay there is the odd mistake but certainly the americans are no better)
America has these phases of 'corporate witch hunts' where they do their damndest to bring a few people down.
In reply to kevin stephens:
A lot of people on here should be worried if it's true that the U.S. consider it illegal to bad mouth people annonimously on the internet. The UKC Three Dozen thread may appear.
A lot of people on here should be worried if it's true that the U.S. consider it illegal to bad mouth people annonimously on the internet. The UKC Three Dozen thread may appear.
In reply to Lego:
It's worse, in that the crime (if such it was) was perpetrated on a UK bank by UK citizens in the UK, There was no US involvement at all apart from the fact, if I understand correctly, that the company who's shares these guys dealt in was an Enron subsidiary.
They were not part of the overall Enron conspiracy at all, but at worst made money (in the UK) off the back of a company that they knew to be overvalued.
It gets even worse: According to a couple of articles in the weekend papers, virtually all the "evidence" the US authorities have against them is contained in depositions that the 3 people *voluntarily* disclosed to British authorities at the time of the Enron collapse. According to one article, when the Enron collapse happened, the 3 immediately thought "oh-ho, that company was an Enron susidiary, this could look bad for us" and went the the authorities in the UK with a full disclosure of the whole set of transactions.
OK, maybe they were playing a double bluff, or something, but it sounds like the case against them is very thin, hence the reluctance to prosecute in the UK.
In any event, summary extradition like this is surely not on. I don't know the legal niceties, but if the USA hasn't ratified their part of it, then can the treaty actually be said to be binding at all, yet?
> It actually sets an incredibly dangerous precedent - if crimes were comitted, then obviously they should be tried by UK law. The fact that we won't try them suggests that we can't see that any crimes (or evidence of any crimes) were comitted.
>
> Does this then mean the US can try any of us for breaking any of their laws, regardless of whether we've broken a law over here?
>
> Does this then mean the US can try any of us for breaking any of their laws, regardless of whether we've broken a law over here?
It's worse, in that the crime (if such it was) was perpetrated on a UK bank by UK citizens in the UK, There was no US involvement at all apart from the fact, if I understand correctly, that the company who's shares these guys dealt in was an Enron subsidiary.
They were not part of the overall Enron conspiracy at all, but at worst made money (in the UK) off the back of a company that they knew to be overvalued.
It gets even worse: According to a couple of articles in the weekend papers, virtually all the "evidence" the US authorities have against them is contained in depositions that the 3 people *voluntarily* disclosed to British authorities at the time of the Enron collapse. According to one article, when the Enron collapse happened, the 3 immediately thought "oh-ho, that company was an Enron susidiary, this could look bad for us" and went the the authorities in the UK with a full disclosure of the whole set of transactions.
OK, maybe they were playing a double bluff, or something, but it sounds like the case against them is very thin, hence the reluctance to prosecute in the UK.
In any event, summary extradition like this is surely not on. I don't know the legal niceties, but if the USA hasn't ratified their part of it, then can the treaty actually be said to be binding at all, yet?
In reply to Wingman@work:
You mean apart from the failure of a shit load of major trials?
The smaller scale stuff aint to bad though. compare the difference in how the banks were treated for hyping stocks.
With regards to this in general, then it is dodgy as hell which, i would guess, is why the Yanks aint signing their part.
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> actually the fsa are pretty bloody good at financial crime (okay there is the odd mistake but certainly the americans are no better)
>
> actually the fsa are pretty bloody good at financial crime (okay there is the odd mistake but certainly the americans are no better)
You mean apart from the failure of a shit load of major trials?
> America has these phases of 'corporate witch hunts' where they do their damndest to bring a few people down.
The smaller scale stuff aint to bad though. compare the difference in how the banks were treated for hyping stocks.
With regards to this in general, then it is dodgy as hell which, i would guess, is why the Yanks aint signing their part.
In reply to dissonance: Another dismal failure of negotiation by the current government, following on from giving up the British EU rebate when France agreed to talk about it again in 2011 or whenever it was.
One is reminded of the American claim that Guantanamo inmates who committed suicide were engaging in 'asymmetric warfare' - Britain's foreign negotiations are in the same league of effectiveness.
One is reminded of the American claim that Guantanamo inmates who committed suicide were engaging in 'asymmetric warfare' - Britain's foreign negotiations are in the same league of effectiveness.
In reply to kevin stephens: There is also the extradition of the British hacker. If I heard correctly he hacked into US military computers from the UK. Surely he is subject only to UK (or EU unfortunately)law.
We would not let Iran extradite because someone in the UK broke their laws via the Internet.
We would not let Iran extradite because someone in the UK broke their laws via the Internet.
In reply to David Riley: I think you are all paranoid. (probably going to regret saying that).
In the US they will at least get the protection of a decent legal system and a very long appeals process. In Iran, Saudi Arabia etc they would get beaten to a pulp, possibly eventually released and then badgered by an arse licking foreign office into shutting up about it.
In the US they will at least get the protection of a decent legal system and a very long appeals process. In Iran, Saudi Arabia etc they would get beaten to a pulp, possibly eventually released and then badgered by an arse licking foreign office into shutting up about it.
In reply to Fawksey:
Ho, ho, ho, such touching naivety! This is the system where most defendants are coerced into plea bargaining by the immense cost of a lawyer and the fact that defense costs aren't recoverable even if you win! A legal system for the very rich who can afford it and the very poor, where you may get a public defendant.
> (In reply to David Riley) I think you are all paranoid. (probably going to regret saying that).
>
> In the US they will at least get the protection of a decent legal system and a very long appeals process.
>
> In the US they will at least get the protection of a decent legal system and a very long appeals process.
Ho, ho, ho, such touching naivety! This is the system where most defendants are coerced into plea bargaining by the immense cost of a lawyer and the fact that defense costs aren't recoverable even if you win! A legal system for the very rich who can afford it and the very poor, where you may get a public defendant.
In reply to chris j:
"Ho, ho, ho, such touching naivety! This is the system where most defendants are coerced into plea bargaining by the immense cost of a lawyer and the fact that defense costs aren't recoverable even if you win! A legal system for the very rich who can afford it and the very poor, where you may get a public defendant."
Good job we are talking about 3 bankers then innit?
"Ho, ho, ho, such touching naivety! This is the system where most defendants are coerced into plea bargaining by the immense cost of a lawyer and the fact that defense costs aren't recoverable even if you win! A legal system for the very rich who can afford it and the very poor, where you may get a public defendant."
Good job we are talking about 3 bankers then innit?
In reply to Rob Naylor:
The intent behind the treaty was to facilitate the ease of extradition of 'terrorists', but the US has sought wider application and the UK has capitulated. I agree with your thoughts on the lack of ratification by the US and am perplexed that no application has been made to the Court of Human Rights to block the extradition. The whole thing has a 'pong' about it.
The 3 accused once extradited could spend up to 2 years in a Texas jail pending trial. This won't help them in the preparation of their defence as most of their evidence in support of their defence will be based in this country.
The intent behind the treaty was to facilitate the ease of extradition of 'terrorists', but the US has sought wider application and the UK has capitulated. I agree with your thoughts on the lack of ratification by the US and am perplexed that no application has been made to the Court of Human Rights to block the extradition. The whole thing has a 'pong' about it.
The 3 accused once extradited could spend up to 2 years in a Texas jail pending trial. This won't help them in the preparation of their defence as most of their evidence in support of their defence will be based in this country.
In reply to kevin stephens: I sort of blogged about it:
http://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.com/2006/07/terrorists-and-freedom-fighte... my main point is the politics of the why the US hasn't ratified rather than the case itself.
http://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.com/2006/07/terrorists-and-freedom-fighte... my main point is the politics of the why the US hasn't ratified rather than the case itself.
In reply to Tiggs:
added to which "bail" conditions are likely to include remaining in the US, which they would have to pay for themselves
does the World really need treaties to allow extradition without a prima facie case being made?
added to which "bail" conditions are likely to include remaining in the US, which they would have to pay for themselves
does the World really need treaties to allow extradition without a prima facie case being made?
In reply to Rob Naylor:
unfortunately, such is the stupidity of this govt, it has been embodied in legislation
unfortunately, such is the stupidity of this govt, it has been embodied in legislation
In reply to kevin stephens:
I look forward to the day when individual citizens of the US are extradited to face charges on environmental grounds. Perhaps. I won't hold by breath though.
I look forward to the day when individual citizens of the US are extradited to face charges on environmental grounds. Perhaps. I won't hold by breath though.
In reply to kevin stephens:
not directly related but kinda appropriate
http://www.heady.co.uk/b3ta/scales7.jpg
p
not directly related but kinda appropriate
http://www.heady.co.uk/b3ta/scales7.jpg
p
In reply to Rob Naylor:
Interesting question. It seems the answer is 'yes' but does anyone know the legal detail. And if it is 'yes' then surely the UK government needs to repeal its legislation urgently? Or, if the US administration really thinks a few votes from Irish-Americans in Boston overwhelm all other strategic considerations, suggest they assemble their next 'coalition of the willing' exclusively from bars in South Armagh ...
> In any event, summary extradition like this is surely not on. I don't know the legal niceties, but if the USA hasn't ratified their part of it, then can the treaty actually be said to be binding at all, yet?
Interesting question. It seems the answer is 'yes' but does anyone know the legal detail. And if it is 'yes' then surely the UK government needs to repeal its legislation urgently? Or, if the US administration really thinks a few votes from Irish-Americans in Boston overwhelm all other strategic considerations, suggest they assemble their next 'coalition of the willing' exclusively from bars in South Armagh ...
In reply to tobyfk:
I don't know but it may well not be the the Administration, i.e. the White House. Ratification relies on the legislative (the Congress) not the executive (the President), and even amongst republicans in the run up to the mid-term congressional elections this autumn many senators and congressmen are trying to distance themselves from Bush.
It would be interesting to try and find out which Congressmen from which areas are holding up ratification. The Irish-lobby accusation that I've heard has only come from the UK and no one has offered much hard evidence, besides the FT quoting those crazies.
> Or, if the US administration really thinks a few votes from Irish-Americans in Boston overwhelm all other strategic considerations, suggest they assemble their next 'coalition of the willing' exclusively from bars in South Armagh ...
I don't know but it may well not be the the Administration, i.e. the White House. Ratification relies on the legislative (the Congress) not the executive (the President), and even amongst republicans in the run up to the mid-term congressional elections this autumn many senators and congressmen are trying to distance themselves from Bush.
It would be interesting to try and find out which Congressmen from which areas are holding up ratification. The Irish-lobby accusation that I've heard has only come from the UK and no one has offered much hard evidence, besides the FT quoting those crazies.
In reply to TobyA:
Sorry, sloppy use of 'administration'. The fragmentation of US government always seems weird but I suppose the nation's long-term historical success suggests it does work.
Sorry, sloppy use of 'administration'. The fragmentation of US government always seems weird but I suppose the nation's long-term historical success suggests it does work.
In reply to tobyfk: According to the US Ambassador who is on the Today programme currently, he claims both he and the President are pushing the senate to ratify.
He hasn't said anything very interesting but you'll be able to podcast the interview in an hour or so if you're interested.
He hasn't said anything very interesting but you'll be able to podcast the interview in an hour or so if you're interested.
In reply to tobyfk:
it is this separation of powers that has finally led to sanity and restoration of reason re the status of captured persons in Guantanamo.
it is this separation of powers that has finally led to sanity and restoration of reason re the status of captured persons in Guantanamo.
In reply to Anonymous:
Agreed. At any point in time one can probably find good examples of both effective checks-and-balances and total dysfunction from the US government system.
Agreed. At any point in time one can probably find good examples of both effective checks-and-balances and total dysfunction from the US government system.
In reply to TobyA: Listening to Alun Jones who is representing the 'NW3' earlier today. Senators Kerry and Kennedy are blocking ratification of the treaty in the US.
Other points of note: The US only has to show 'probable cause' which means on the flimsiest of evidence. It seems that Nat West (the victim) have suffered no financial loss as a result of the alleged conspiracy and made no complaints to the police in the UK hence no proceedings over here.
On the Human Rights issue a series of cases in recent years have ruled that extradition is such an important issue that it overrides the 'right to a family life' etc., that would form the basis of a case to the Court of Human Rights.
There's been a newsflash that another NatWest employee interviewed by the FBI about this matter has been found dead in a park in NE London today. He was last seen by his family last week.
Other points of note: The US only has to show 'probable cause' which means on the flimsiest of evidence. It seems that Nat West (the victim) have suffered no financial loss as a result of the alleged conspiracy and made no complaints to the police in the UK hence no proceedings over here.
On the Human Rights issue a series of cases in recent years have ruled that extradition is such an important issue that it overrides the 'right to a family life' etc., that would form the basis of a case to the Court of Human Rights.
There's been a newsflash that another NatWest employee interviewed by the FBI about this matter has been found dead in a park in NE London today. He was last seen by his family last week.
In reply to Tiggs:
Thanks Tiggs! You've been blogged: http://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.com/2006/07/natwest-3-vs-larry-chef-zaits... But as result of your tip I've spent the last hour and a half writing the entry and on google trying to find some evidence to back this up and now its very late here and I'll be in trouble with the missus!
> (In reply to TobyA) Listening to Alun Jones who is representing the 'NW3' earlier today. Senators Kerry and Kennedy are blocking ratification of the treaty in the US.
Thanks Tiggs! You've been blogged: http://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.com/2006/07/natwest-3-vs-larry-chef-zaits... But as result of your tip I've spent the last hour and a half writing the entry and on google trying to find some evidence to back this up and now its very late here and I'll be in trouble with the missus!
In reply to TobyA:
did you find the irish freedom committee website.
appears quite vocal on the subject.
on the random bits appears boris johnson did an early day motion on it last year
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=28440&SESSION=875
did you find the irish freedom committee website.
appears quite vocal on the subject.
on the random bits appears boris johnson did an early day motion on it last year
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=28440&SESSION=875
In reply to dissonance: I did look - but they seem completely crazy - calling the IRA sell outs and all that.
Thanks for more Boris ramblings.
Thanks for more Boris ramblings.
In reply to kevin stephens:
We have a weak government that is in the thrall of the USA. All some jumoed up Da needs in the states is probable cause (ie SFA evidence) and you are on a plane to the weird world of US Justice.
We have a weak government that is in the thrall of the USA. All some jumoed up Da needs in the states is probable cause (ie SFA evidence) and you are on a plane to the weird world of US Justice.
In reply to Tiggs:
that lobby has a long history of offering succour to terrorists, indeed, actively fundraising for terrorist.
Ironic isn't it
that lobby has a long history of offering succour to terrorists, indeed, actively fundraising for terrorist.
Ironic isn't it
In reply to Rob Naylor: What's the legal case for the defence then (against extradition rather than against the charges)? I see the politics - its a question of reciprocity - but if the UK Courts of Appeals have always found that the extradition is valid why are they wrong?
I know so little about law, international or not, that I've stayed well clear of that. I understand the politics but can someone give it a go explaining the legalatities. It seems to me that we can be angry with the govt./parliament for ratifying the treaty before the Congree would, but once the law is in place why should some exceptions be made?
I have been reading up on this - such as:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5174358.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5164652.stm
but why is this guy wrong?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1815885,00.html
or indeed this sarcy bloke in the Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2262960,00.html
I find it almost amusing that now people are saying that once they've paid their bail they won't be able to afford top lawyers. Where is the Telegraph's outrage when some kid nicked for burglary or joyriding can't afford to pick his own QC and has to make do with the duty solicitor (or public defender in the US)?
I know so little about law, international or not, that I've stayed well clear of that. I understand the politics but can someone give it a go explaining the legalatities. It seems to me that we can be angry with the govt./parliament for ratifying the treaty before the Congree would, but once the law is in place why should some exceptions be made?
I have been reading up on this - such as:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5174358.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5164652.stm
but why is this guy wrong?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1815885,00.html
or indeed this sarcy bloke in the Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2262960,00.html
I find it almost amusing that now people are saying that once they've paid their bail they won't be able to afford top lawyers. Where is the Telegraph's outrage when some kid nicked for burglary or joyriding can't afford to pick his own QC and has to make do with the duty solicitor (or public defender in the US)?
In reply to TobyA:
yup they seem a tad, ermmm, extreme, but they do have a good timeline of the various events including in the UK.
Looks like the Lib Dems complained at the time as well but gave up.
> (In reply to dissonance) I did look - but they seem completely crazy - calling the IRA sell outs and all that.
>
> Thanks for more Boris ramblings.
>
> Thanks for more Boris ramblings.
yup they seem a tad, ermmm, extreme, but they do have a good timeline of the various events including in the UK.
Looks like the Lib Dems complained at the time as well but gave up.
In reply to TobyA:
Um one of them has a 10 million pound house. On radio 4 today, they were saying how they have had (paid for I guess) PR experts, to get all the sympathetic media coverage they have received. Personally, I have no sympathy for them. Good for them on doing well financially in life but I have a very low opinion of white collar crime. And yes they are innocent till proved guilty but it's still a very serious charge which I think they should answer.
I've not read all of this thread.
The press coverage has been so biased it's been amazing. Their PR people have done well but failed to stop thier extradition.
>
> I find it almost amusing that now people are saying that once they've paid their bail they won't be able to afford top lawyers. Where is the Telegraph's outrage when some kid nicked for burglary or joyriding can't afford to pick his own QC and has to make do with the duty solicitor (or public defender in the US)?
> I find it almost amusing that now people are saying that once they've paid their bail they won't be able to afford top lawyers. Where is the Telegraph's outrage when some kid nicked for burglary or joyriding can't afford to pick his own QC and has to make do with the duty solicitor (or public defender in the US)?
Um one of them has a 10 million pound house. On radio 4 today, they were saying how they have had (paid for I guess) PR experts, to get all the sympathetic media coverage they have received. Personally, I have no sympathy for them. Good for them on doing well financially in life but I have a very low opinion of white collar crime. And yes they are innocent till proved guilty but it's still a very serious charge which I think they should answer.
I've not read all of this thread.
The press coverage has been so biased it's been amazing. Their PR people have done well but failed to stop thier extradition.
In reply to rock waif:
whether it is a serious crime is irrelevant, what matters is that the alleged crimes were committed in the UK by people who were in the uk and are frmo the UK. The only reason the US us interested is because it concerned enron. Enron was an international company. they should be tried in the UK by the UK courts, not by the US in US courts. Also, what about the other people being extradited to the US. One hacker who broke into US government computers is being extradited. Thats appalling. Hes an idiot but the US doesnt believe idiots should get off lightly jsut for being idiots, they're harsh to the point of being tyrannical on everyone.
p
whether it is a serious crime is irrelevant, what matters is that the alleged crimes were committed in the UK by people who were in the uk and are frmo the UK. The only reason the US us interested is because it concerned enron. Enron was an international company. they should be tried in the UK by the UK courts, not by the US in US courts. Also, what about the other people being extradited to the US. One hacker who broke into US government computers is being extradited. Thats appalling. Hes an idiot but the US doesnt believe idiots should get off lightly jsut for being idiots, they're harsh to the point of being tyrannical on everyone.
p
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
which i think proves her point.
This has been around since 2003, it is only once they got the PR bods involved it jumped back up the agenda.
> (In reply to rock waif)
>
> Also, what about the other people being extradited to the US.
>
> Also, what about the other people being extradited to the US.
which i think proves her point.
This has been around since 2003, it is only once they got the PR bods involved it jumped back up the agenda.
In reply to rock waif:
Do you think the laws of another country should overide the ones in which you live in? If so do not work for a Swiss firm, whistleblowers get sent to prison there instead of being praised.
Do you think the laws of another country should overide the ones in which you live in? If so do not work for a Swiss firm, whistleblowers get sent to prison there instead of being praised.
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
The point is they used Enron money to finance the deal with NatWest, hence they could be part of a greater fraud that was committed in the US.
People seem confused about this. Is the point that we shouldn't raify the treaty at all and not send them there or is the point that the US haven't ratified it so it's not fair?
All this BS about them not being charged in this country was (a) decided by a judge NOT SFO, who was satisfied that the trial in US should go ahead. (b) Does not prove their innocence because SFO did not proceed (SFO wouldn't be privy to all the info the US has).
The point is they used Enron money to finance the deal with NatWest, hence they could be part of a greater fraud that was committed in the US.
People seem confused about this. Is the point that we shouldn't raify the treaty at all and not send them there or is the point that the US haven't ratified it so it's not fair?
All this BS about them not being charged in this country was (a) decided by a judge NOT SFO, who was satisfied that the trial in US should go ahead. (b) Does not prove their innocence because SFO did not proceed (SFO wouldn't be privy to all the info the US has).
In reply to sutty: No but as far as I understand it, what they did would also have been fraud here (yes, I know why people think they should be tried here.....)
In reply to rock waif: The piece in the Times today was so slanted too. All about how they spent their last day of freedom with their young children and how they could be locked up in a tiny cell or worse sharing one with a drug/people trafficker.
In reply to Fawksey: I know it makes them sound like they are going to Guantanamo! I heard it on the radio, "they leave not knowing when they will see their famillies again". Their famillies can afford flights ffs! They have been told they will get bail but not be allowed to leave the State.
In reply to rock waif: To me
A, it sounds like its a good treat and that the UK should be applauded for ratifying it and that but for some Irish Americans trying to protect certain IRA sympathgisers from possible extraditiond to the UK they would have rubber stamped it too.
B, A lot of relatively poor people lost their incomes out of the Enron debacle and that those responsible should be held accountable.
And as for the hacker being an idiot, its about time idiots realised the consequences of the silly games they play.
A, it sounds like its a good treat and that the UK should be applauded for ratifying it and that but for some Irish Americans trying to protect certain IRA sympathgisers from possible extraditiond to the UK they would have rubber stamped it too.
B, A lot of relatively poor people lost their incomes out of the Enron debacle and that those responsible should be held accountable.
And as for the hacker being an idiot, its about time idiots realised the consequences of the silly games they play.
In reply to Fawksey:
SO if the US ratified the treaty, would the sympathy band wagon ground to a halt?
These 3 guys will earn more in interest from their "investments" while sitting it out on bail (which semms likely to be allowed) for 2 years in the States, than most folk on UKC would get from 2 years hard work.
SO if the US ratified the treaty, would the sympathy band wagon ground to a halt?
These 3 guys will earn more in interest from their "investments" while sitting it out on bail (which semms likely to be allowed) for 2 years in the States, than most folk on UKC would get from 2 years hard work.
In reply to kevin stephens: I think the sympathy band wagon is already grinding to a halt and that their PR machine will have already realised that and be shifting emphasis somehow
In reply to Fawksey: as I am lead to believe RBS conducted an investigation into the incident which conlcuded that no fraud had been perpetrated and that they were happy with what happened - i.e. there is no aggrieved party.
In reply to Fawksey:
if the uk government wants hacking to be illegal they can make it illegal. They shouldnt be sending people to the states for crimes committed in the UK because the US has extended its laws past the boundaries it should be allowed to extend them past.
p
> (In reply to rock waif) To me
> And as for the hacker being an idiot, its about time idiots realised the consequences of the silly games they play.
> And as for the hacker being an idiot, its about time idiots realised the consequences of the silly games they play.
if the uk government wants hacking to be illegal they can make it illegal. They shouldnt be sending people to the states for crimes committed in the UK because the US has extended its laws past the boundaries it should be allowed to extend them past.
p
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
So your saying that it would be wrong for the UK Authorities to pursue criminals who, say for example, runied a lot of UK folk through an internet fraud based off shore?
So your saying that it would be wrong for the UK Authorities to pursue criminals who, say for example, runied a lot of UK folk through an internet fraud based off shore?
In reply to McGus: Im sure it will all come out in the wash
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
Hasn't the UK also done this in respect of child porn/sex abuse. I.e. by actively pursuing alleged offenders in countries where they might not have been prosecuted?
Not that I think it's a bad thing btw...
Personally, I think the US needs to ratify it's side of the bargain. It wouldn't make a difference to the NatWest 3 though - they would still be in the US facing charges.
White collar crime is a crime... they're getting a lot more sympathy than others would - simply because they're middle-class, white family men imho.
> the US has extended its laws past the boundaries
Hasn't the UK also done this in respect of child porn/sex abuse. I.e. by actively pursuing alleged offenders in countries where they might not have been prosecuted?
Not that I think it's a bad thing btw...
Personally, I think the US needs to ratify it's side of the bargain. It wouldn't make a difference to the NatWest 3 though - they would still be in the US facing charges.
White collar crime is a crime... they're getting a lot more sympathy than others would - simply because they're middle-class, white family men imho.
In reply to Hotbad Peteel: What about the Good Samaritan law which they have in Greece, Spain and France? (Where you can be prosecuted for not helping someone who is dying and leaving someone to die, it's manslaughter there)
Would you want someone to be extradited for doing that abroad?
It is a very difficult area, which is not black and white to me. For example, with Sharia law, I would not think someone should be extradited to be stoned abroad for adultery committed abroad.
There's also cases of child sex crime abroad, which can be tried in the UK...
Is your objection because it's the US or would it be the same for any country? Got me thinking.
Would you want someone to be extradited for doing that abroad?
It is a very difficult area, which is not black and white to me. For example, with Sharia law, I would not think someone should be extradited to be stoned abroad for adultery committed abroad.
There's also cases of child sex crime abroad, which can be tried in the UK...
Is your objection because it's the US or would it be the same for any country? Got me thinking.
In reply to SARS: I agree wholeheartedly with that.
And as Rock waif has alluded to in her post, a lot of this is being fuelled by the wave of anti americanism going round at the moment.
And as Rock waif has alluded to in her post, a lot of this is being fuelled by the wave of anti americanism going round at the moment.
In reply to Fawksey: I was not thinking about that but it could have been used by the PR people, don't know...
Cynic here.
Cynic here.
In reply to rock waif: Sorry. Yes I think the PR people have used that.
In reply to Fawksey: No probs
In reply to rock waif:
to be honest, the problem with extradition to the states is that there legal system is f*cked. Lots of people have to plea bargani and accept jail time because they cant afford to defend themselves in the Us courts. If your discussing thing slike this, you have to assume that the defending party is innocent, regardless of the crime. If you were accused of a crime in the states it would be extremely expensive to defend and if you couldnt afford to defend yourself then your pretty much damned. Thats an issue with the Us legal system that shold not be inflicted on americans, let alone people who should not be affected by the laws and legal system of the states. Innocence is not a matter for discussion in such debates. I'd assume that the natwest 3 are innocent purely because they have not been to trial yet and as such taking them to a foreign country and effectively imprisoning them in that country away from their family and livelihood is terrible and should not be allowed. The fact that they are obscenely rich bankers should not be used to justify doing that as they are still human beings.
p
to be honest, the problem with extradition to the states is that there legal system is f*cked. Lots of people have to plea bargani and accept jail time because they cant afford to defend themselves in the Us courts. If your discussing thing slike this, you have to assume that the defending party is innocent, regardless of the crime. If you were accused of a crime in the states it would be extremely expensive to defend and if you couldnt afford to defend yourself then your pretty much damned. Thats an issue with the Us legal system that shold not be inflicted on americans, let alone people who should not be affected by the laws and legal system of the states. Innocence is not a matter for discussion in such debates. I'd assume that the natwest 3 are innocent purely because they have not been to trial yet and as such taking them to a foreign country and effectively imprisoning them in that country away from their family and livelihood is terrible and should not be allowed. The fact that they are obscenely rich bankers should not be used to justify doing that as they are still human beings.
p
In reply to Hotbad Peteel: My understanding is that they have legal aid in the States?
In reply to rock waif:
not exactly. They have defense counsel who will represent you if your really poor, but if your not really really poor your on your own. I'm sure someone else will come along and explain but getting taken to court in the states is pretty bad I believe. I'd guess McKinnon can only fight his case because he has so many supporters who are opposed to US computer crime laws being enforced in the UK. Too right too.
p
not exactly. They have defense counsel who will represent you if your really poor, but if your not really really poor your on your own. I'm sure someone else will come along and explain but getting taken to court in the states is pretty bad I believe. I'd guess McKinnon can only fight his case because he has so many supporters who are opposed to US computer crime laws being enforced in the UK. Too right too.
p
In reply to Hotbad Peteel: but as they are not salaried in the US do they not qualify?
In reply to Glyn Jones:
quick check on google makes it look like theres a charity secor providing legal services to the poor. Obviously the natwest 3 will be able to afford good counsel, but thats not the point. If I was extradited fro doing something on a computer I wouldnt be able to afford to defend myself. the scary thing is that I dont do illegal things on my computer so i'd be innocent. god a hate that tw*t blair, inflicting the stupidity of the american legal system on me.
p
quick check on google makes it look like theres a charity secor providing legal services to the poor. Obviously the natwest 3 will be able to afford good counsel, but thats not the point. If I was extradited fro doing something on a computer I wouldnt be able to afford to defend myself. the scary thing is that I dont do illegal things on my computer so i'd be innocent. god a hate that tw*t blair, inflicting the stupidity of the american legal system on me.
p
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
Agree; but any sympathy I may have had for these people went when I saw the TV interviews and saw what luxury they live in over here. Allright, that may not be relevant, but recent news reports indicate they may be more like "nasty heavies" in their ruthless behaviour, rather than genial. pin-stripped, English city bankers.
Agree; but any sympathy I may have had for these people went when I saw the TV interviews and saw what luxury they live in over here. Allright, that may not be relevant, but recent news reports indicate they may be more like "nasty heavies" in their ruthless behaviour, rather than genial. pin-stripped, English city bankers.
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
Have you been drinking.......?
> If I was extradited fro doing something on a computer I wouldnt be able to afford to defend myself. the scary thing is that I dont do illegal things on my computer so i'd be innocent.
Have you been drinking.......?
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
The hacking one is interesting on the grounds the damage was done in the US even though the bod was within the UK
For these three bods they have got good PR, but ultimately the crime was committed against a British company by British based people, the only link with Enron was that a yankee bod was involved in it.
There does appear to be evidence gathered by the yanks which imples they might be guilty and which wouldnt have been available to Natwest.
Personally as much as i would like to see them locked up on general principle i cant help but think an extradition treaty that is so open to abuse is not a good idea.
> if the uk government wants hacking to be illegal they can make it illegal. They shouldnt be sending people to the states for crimes committed in the UK because the US has extended its laws past the boundaries it should be allowed to extend them past.
The hacking one is interesting on the grounds the damage was done in the US even though the bod was within the UK
For these three bods they have got good PR, but ultimately the crime was committed against a British company by British based people, the only link with Enron was that a yankee bod was involved in it.
There does appear to be evidence gathered by the yanks which imples they might be guilty and which wouldnt have been available to Natwest.
Personally as much as i would like to see them locked up on general principle i cant help but think an extradition treaty that is so open to abuse is not a good idea.
In reply to rock waif:
The timescale for going to court can be several years, which is a bit of a bitch if a)you aint granted bail or b) you are but you aint allowed to work (admittedly probably not a prob for these three).
The public defence system in the states doesnt exactly cover itself in glory, although then i am not sure how good the uk one is.
> (In reply to Hotbad Peteel) My understanding is that they have legal aid in the States?
The timescale for going to court can be several years, which is a bit of a bitch if a)you aint granted bail or b) you are but you aint allowed to work (admittedly probably not a prob for these three).
The public defence system in the states doesnt exactly cover itself in glory, although then i am not sure how good the uk one is.
In reply to dissonance:
My view is that if they did something in the UK that was not illegal under UK law then that is fine. If they did something in the UK that was illegal under american law then thats just too bad for the americans, but this is what national boundaires are about. Anyway, this extradition treaty was brought in under the pretence of helping prevent terrorism. so far its been used to extradite 3 people involved in defrauding pension schemes and a guy who hacked into Us computers trying to find evidence of UFOs. It hasnt been used successfully to prevent terrorism yet. I thought the CIA just used private jets for that.
p
My view is that if they did something in the UK that was not illegal under UK law then that is fine. If they did something in the UK that was illegal under american law then thats just too bad for the americans, but this is what national boundaires are about. Anyway, this extradition treaty was brought in under the pretence of helping prevent terrorism. so far its been used to extradite 3 people involved in defrauding pension schemes and a guy who hacked into Us computers trying to find evidence of UFOs. It hasnt been used successfully to prevent terrorism yet. I thought the CIA just used private jets for that.
p
In reply to Hotbad Peteel: I think youve got a bit of a downer on our freinds over the pond and you are allowing it to cloud your judgement.
In reply to SARS:
Nah! He's probably left his wine at the supermarket again.
His point is valid though. This fast track extradition treaty was sold as being an anti trerrorist thing but it has been totally abused by the Americans.
This is not the 51st State and we should tell the yanks to piss off until they ratify the treaty and then it should only be used for terrror suspects and the old agreeement should be used for everything else.
The USA does not have a great track record when it comes to justice.
Nah! He's probably left his wine at the supermarket again.
His point is valid though. This fast track extradition treaty was sold as being an anti trerrorist thing but it has been totally abused by the Americans.
This is not the 51st State and we should tell the yanks to piss off until they ratify the treaty and then it should only be used for terrror suspects and the old agreeement should be used for everything else.
The USA does not have a great track record when it comes to justice.
In reply to Fawksey:
i'll admit i'm generally anti american, however this is a different matter. If I was in the states and I murdered somebody and fled to the UK, then yes its fair for me to be extradited. This could already be done, the treaty was to lower the burden of proof. What is happening now is that people are being extradited for acts which are not crimes at the point where they were carried out. That is wrong.
p
i'll admit i'm generally anti american, however this is a different matter. If I was in the states and I murdered somebody and fled to the UK, then yes its fair for me to be extradited. This could already be done, the treaty was to lower the burden of proof. What is happening now is that people are being extradited for acts which are not crimes at the point where they were carried out. That is wrong.
p
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
not right now, off to bed; climbing tomorrow
I live on the east side, Village Inn/Bowling Green area
any other time, Sun onwards
Cheers
not right now, off to bed; climbing tomorrow
I live on the east side, Village Inn/Bowling Green area
any other time, Sun onwards
Cheers
In reply to Hotbad Peteel: In that case is it correct for the UK courts to try people for acts of indecency against children in the likes of Sri Lanka?
In reply to Jason Kirk:
The Us 'fair' justice system imprisoned someone for 9 years for hacking into an unsecured wireless network and planting a program that would collect credit card numbers. the program collected 6 numbers before they were caught. No crime was committed otehr than collecting the numbers and using an unsecured network. The brother of a guy I used to know (in the UK) was sentenced to 10 years for robbing a security van with 2M pounds in, threatening the guards by saying that there was a bomb in their van so they would have feared for thre lives. 9 years for attempting to steal credit card numbers versus 10 years for armed robbery. I think the 10 years for armed robbery was quite fair btw.
p
The Us 'fair' justice system imprisoned someone for 9 years for hacking into an unsecured wireless network and planting a program that would collect credit card numbers. the program collected 6 numbers before they were caught. No crime was committed otehr than collecting the numbers and using an unsecured network. The brother of a guy I used to know (in the UK) was sentenced to 10 years for robbing a security van with 2M pounds in, threatening the guards by saying that there was a bomb in their van so they would have feared for thre lives. 9 years for attempting to steal credit card numbers versus 10 years for armed robbery. I think the 10 years for armed robbery was quite fair btw.
p
In reply to Jason Kirk:
nope, sorry i dont think it should even be in place for that.
a)because you would still need the proof to show it was a terrorist offence and b)the number of people in Guantanemo and have now been release without charge doesnt really support the USA history in arresting the right people
> This is not the 51st State and we should tell the yanks to piss off until they ratify the treaty and then it should only be used for terrror suspects and the old agreeement should be used for everything else.
nope, sorry i dont think it should even be in place for that.
a)because you would still need the proof to show it was a terrorist offence and b)the number of people in Guantanemo and have now been release without charge doesnt really support the USA history in arresting the right people
In reply to Fawksey:
No the UK has no right to charge people for offences committed abroad. If somebody wants to go to thailand and sleep with young children, then that is a matter for the authorities in thailand to deal with. We shouldnt seem to force our moral standards onto other countries.
p
No the UK has no right to charge people for offences committed abroad. If somebody wants to go to thailand and sleep with young children, then that is a matter for the authorities in thailand to deal with. We shouldnt seem to force our moral standards onto other countries.
p
In reply to dissonance:
Aye your no wrang. Blair needs thrown out on his arse slong with the rest of the labout muppets that have supported him.
Aye your no wrang. Blair needs thrown out on his arse slong with the rest of the labout muppets that have supported him.
In reply to dissonance:
disagree there. guantanamos a bad example. The US has never needed to provide any evidence to justify taking people to guantanamo (need in the sense that they've got big guns and dont care what anyone says, rather than a legal need). To extradite under this treaty they do need to show evidence, but only enough evidence to justify an arrest, not enough evidence to show that they are guilty as in the previous arrangement (though thats possibly not correct, its roughly correct). anyone deported on a terrorism charge to the Us would need to go through a UK court and evidence would need to be shown that they are reasonably likely to be guilty.
p
disagree there. guantanamos a bad example. The US has never needed to provide any evidence to justify taking people to guantanamo (need in the sense that they've got big guns and dont care what anyone says, rather than a legal need). To extradite under this treaty they do need to show evidence, but only enough evidence to justify an arrest, not enough evidence to show that they are guilty as in the previous arrangement (though thats possibly not correct, its roughly correct). anyone deported on a terrorism charge to the Us would need to go through a UK court and evidence would need to be shown that they are reasonably likely to be guilty.
p
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
that was more a point on the US interesting approach to guilt in criminal cases
all that is needed is:
a description of the bod, the offence and the penalty for that.
So arguably less than is needed for a arrest in the UK?
Interestingly apparently 11 people have been extradited already under this (unclear whether those 3 are in the 11), leaving 8 people without good PR agents
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> disagree there. guantanamos a bad example.
>
> disagree there. guantanamos a bad example.
that was more a point on the US interesting approach to guilt in criminal cases
> To extradite under this treaty they do need to show evidence, but only enough evidence to justify an arrest,
all that is needed is:
a description of the bod, the offence and the penalty for that.
So arguably less than is needed for a arrest in the UK?
Interestingly apparently 11 people have been extradited already under this (unclear whether those 3 are in the 11), leaving 8 people without good PR agents
In reply to dissonance:
Our current governemnt have done more to limit our liberty than any other previous Briitsh Government in history since the Magne Carta was signed.
The sooner they are consigned to history the better.
Our current governemnt have done more to limit our liberty than any other previous Briitsh Government in history since the Magne Carta was signed.
The sooner they are consigned to history the better.
In reply to Jason Kirk:
Fingers crossed the next government will put it right again. The Id cards scheme seems to be on the rocks, and looks like lots of manouvernig at the home office to justify canning the scheme without looking silly. Blairs got wolves at the door with the loans scandal. Tha natwest 3 case has brought to light the fact that blairs chucked our liberty straight into the americans back pocket. Fingers crossed that there'll be a proper leadership challenge when blair goes as brown may well be worse, though that could just be smearnig from the blair side.
Bit of an aside. anyone remember the criminal justice act. Michael howard was home secretary and one of the things it covered was listening to repetitive beats in a public place in a group of more than 2 people. It also made trespass a criminal offence (I think) which made climbing on private land criminally illegal without permission (obviously permission means liability). blair was shadow home secretary and he 'suggested' that labour should abstain knowing full well that abstaining would allow the law to pass withouth them having to actually having to vote for it. What an utter coward and what a crook
p
Fingers crossed the next government will put it right again. The Id cards scheme seems to be on the rocks, and looks like lots of manouvernig at the home office to justify canning the scheme without looking silly. Blairs got wolves at the door with the loans scandal. Tha natwest 3 case has brought to light the fact that blairs chucked our liberty straight into the americans back pocket. Fingers crossed that there'll be a proper leadership challenge when blair goes as brown may well be worse, though that could just be smearnig from the blair side.
Bit of an aside. anyone remember the criminal justice act. Michael howard was home secretary and one of the things it covered was listening to repetitive beats in a public place in a group of more than 2 people. It also made trespass a criminal offence (I think) which made climbing on private land criminally illegal without permission (obviously permission means liability). blair was shadow home secretary and he 'suggested' that labour should abstain knowing full well that abstaining would allow the law to pass withouth them having to actually having to vote for it. What an utter coward and what a crook
p
In reply to winhill:
What did thatcher do to invade peoples liberties. she opened up the economy so anyone could go out and make money and she removed the moral fibre of the country. She didnt bring in ID cards, automated enforcement of laws, the densest cctv surveillance system in the world, deportation to the states without evidence, crushing off untaxed cars, on the spot fines for public order offences, impedements to the right of free speech (incitement to religious hated laws), application of laws to people outside of british territory, voting in parliament by people not affected by those laws, delay of general elections past the 5 year boundary (foot and mouth), privatisation of schools, limitations on right to free health care, deportation to unsafe countries etc etc etc etc
p
What did thatcher do to invade peoples liberties. she opened up the economy so anyone could go out and make money and she removed the moral fibre of the country. She didnt bring in ID cards, automated enforcement of laws, the densest cctv surveillance system in the world, deportation to the states without evidence, crushing off untaxed cars, on the spot fines for public order offences, impedements to the right of free speech (incitement to religious hated laws), application of laws to people outside of british territory, voting in parliament by people not affected by those laws, delay of general elections past the 5 year boundary (foot and mouth), privatisation of schools, limitations on right to free health care, deportation to unsafe countries etc etc etc etc
p
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
Sorry that's not right. If a British person commits murder abroad, they can be tried in the UK for it but the law has never been tested. I can't remember the details but can get them tomorrow.
> (In reply to Fawksey)
>
> No the UK has no right to charge people for offences committed abroad.
>
> No the UK has no right to charge people for offences committed abroad.
Sorry that's not right. If a British person commits murder abroad, they can be tried in the UK for it but the law has never been tested. I can't remember the details but can get them tomorrow.
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
That's not true either I'm afraid (except for the last part). The 2003 Sexual Offences Act 2003 gave UK courts the power to bring Britons to trial in the UK for alleged sex offences committed abroad but only if they are also considered crimes in that country.
Do you really believe that in Thailand their "moral standards" allow paedophilia? I am hoping you're just a bit pissed or something.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4768562.stm
Similar law used in France
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/980337.stm
Similar law used in Australia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/354977.stm
> (In reply to Fawksey)
>
> No the UK has no right to charge people for offences committed abroad. If somebody wants to go to thailand and sleep with young children, then that is a matter for the authorities in thailand to deal with. We shouldnt seem to force our moral standards onto other countries.
> p
>
> No the UK has no right to charge people for offences committed abroad. If somebody wants to go to thailand and sleep with young children, then that is a matter for the authorities in thailand to deal with. We shouldnt seem to force our moral standards onto other countries.
> p
That's not true either I'm afraid (except for the last part). The 2003 Sexual Offences Act 2003 gave UK courts the power to bring Britons to trial in the UK for alleged sex offences committed abroad but only if they are also considered crimes in that country.
Do you really believe that in Thailand their "moral standards" allow paedophilia? I am hoping you're just a bit pissed or something.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4768562.stm
Similar law used in France
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/980337.stm
Similar law used in Australia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/354977.stm
In reply to rock waif:
My opinion is that the uk has no right to try someone for a crime committed abroad. I assume theres legal basis for that too as the government had to bring in laws to allow sex charges to be brought where the act took place out of the uk.
p
My opinion is that the uk has no right to try someone for a crime committed abroad. I assume theres legal basis for that too as the government had to bring in laws to allow sex charges to be brought where the act took place out of the uk.
p
In reply to rock waif:
your reading my posts wrong. If a child is abused in thailand then thats a matter for the thai government. I believe there quite harsh btw. the 2003 act tries to make it illegal to commit sexual offences even if your outside the uks durisdiction. The law exists i'll agrree with you, it is my opinion that that is wrong. Offences committed in thailand are matters for thailand to deal with.
p
your reading my posts wrong. If a child is abused in thailand then thats a matter for the thai government. I believe there quite harsh btw. the 2003 act tries to make it illegal to commit sexual offences even if your outside the uks durisdiction. The law exists i'll agrree with you, it is my opinion that that is wrong. Offences committed in thailand are matters for thailand to deal with.
p
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
so how would you see them being prosecuted?
Also what about for countries without a functioning legal system?
> (In reply to rock waif)
>
> My opinion is that the uk has no right to try someone for a crime committed abroad. I assume theres legal basis for that too as the government had to bring in laws to allow sex charges to be brought where the act took place out of the uk.
>
> My opinion is that the uk has no right to try someone for a crime committed abroad. I assume theres legal basis for that too as the government had to bring in laws to allow sex charges to be brought where the act took place out of the uk.
so how would you see them being prosecuted?
Also what about for countries without a functioning legal system?
In reply to dissonance:
like i said, if a crimes committed in thailand then its a matter for the thsi legal system. end of story. Extradition is the way to deal with cases like this, not attempting to enforce laws across boundaries. How about the UK passing a law banning cannabis internationally. Anyone caught smoking cannabis in any country would be deemed a criminal under uk law even though it wasnt an offence (think dutch cafes).
p
like i said, if a crimes committed in thailand then its a matter for the thsi legal system. end of story. Extradition is the way to deal with cases like this, not attempting to enforce laws across boundaries. How about the UK passing a law banning cannabis internationally. Anyone caught smoking cannabis in any country would be deemed a criminal under uk law even though it wasnt an offence (think dutch cafes).
p
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
actually a better example would be this. Americas passes a law against sex tourism. It makes it illegal to have sex with somebody under 16 anywhere in the world. A british man commits said act in cambodia. America then extradites them for said offence. America has no justifiable interest in the case but at present (assuming they have such a law) this is possible. The matter of whether its a bad thing disappears if you swap rape for fraud and cambodie for britain.
p
actually a better example would be this. Americas passes a law against sex tourism. It makes it illegal to have sex with somebody under 16 anywhere in the world. A british man commits said act in cambodia. America then extradites them for said offence. America has no justifiable interest in the case but at present (assuming they have such a law) this is possible. The matter of whether its a bad thing disappears if you swap rape for fraud and cambodie for britain.
p
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
Er, removed the right of travel for Kent miners during the Miners Strike, PACE,destroyed the organised labour laws so firms could invest in this country and then piss of to the Czech republic at a moments notice.
I think private schools have been around for thousands of years - well before state schools.
Limitations on the right to free healthcare - what on earth??
Er, removed the right of travel for Kent miners during the Miners Strike, PACE,destroyed the organised labour laws so firms could invest in this country and then piss of to the Czech republic at a moments notice.
I think private schools have been around for thousands of years - well before state schools.
Limitations on the right to free healthcare - what on earth??
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
So Milosovic should never have been charged with war crimes? The spanish should have never tried that Chilean former officer for murder spanish passport holders during the Pinocet years? The Belgiums shouldn't be currently trying to try the former president of Chad for war crimes (he is now to be tried in Senegal under Senagalese law)? Your rather quaint idea that national sovereignty ends the claims of other legal systems is about 50 years out of date. And then laughably you go on to criticise the length of sentences that the US give out for certain crimes! If the people of that state in the US have elected (as they do) judiciary who have set those sentences - what on earth business is for us to say what is wrong with their sentences? Perhaps you'd like to give your considered legal opininon on the Finnish system who decided that a convicted rapist didn't have to go to prison as he might lose his job if he got banged up for 6 months? Or is it only the US you critize? What about the French system where terrorists suspects can be held for years without being charged, and then once charged held for year before trial?
You have the right to remain silence, but anything you say late at night on friday after some beer may be read by other on a saturday morning over breakfast and laughed at.
> like i said, if a crimes committed in thailand then its a matter for the thsi legal system. end of story.
So Milosovic should never have been charged with war crimes? The spanish should have never tried that Chilean former officer for murder spanish passport holders during the Pinocet years? The Belgiums shouldn't be currently trying to try the former president of Chad for war crimes (he is now to be tried in Senegal under Senagalese law)? Your rather quaint idea that national sovereignty ends the claims of other legal systems is about 50 years out of date. And then laughably you go on to criticise the length of sentences that the US give out for certain crimes! If the people of that state in the US have elected (as they do) judiciary who have set those sentences - what on earth business is for us to say what is wrong with their sentences? Perhaps you'd like to give your considered legal opininon on the Finnish system who decided that a convicted rapist didn't have to go to prison as he might lose his job if he got banged up for 6 months? Or is it only the US you critize? What about the French system where terrorists suspects can be held for years without being charged, and then once charged held for year before trial?
You have the right to remain silence, but anything you say late at night on friday after some beer may be read by other on a saturday morning over breakfast and laughed at.
In reply to TobyA:
I thought that last night, a reet rave.
However, I considered the fact certain crimes in other countries carry the death sentence, should we send people back to be tried by say Shariah law?
> but anything you say late at night on friday after some beer may be read by other on a saturday morning over breakfast and laughed at. ;-
I thought that last night, a reet rave.
However, I considered the fact certain crimes in other countries carry the death sentence, should we send people back to be tried by say Shariah law?
In reply to sutty: No we shouldn't, and its illegal anyway under the European human rights act so can't and won't.
In reply to TobyA:
interesting one, particularly since one of the arguments for this treaty is it brings the US into line with our agreement with Europe
Just late at night?
> What about the French system where terrorists suspects can be held for years without being charged, and then once charged held for year before trial?
interesting one, particularly since one of the arguments for this treaty is it brings the US into line with our agreement with Europe
> You have the right to remain silence, but anything you say late at night on friday after some beer may be read by other on a saturday morning over breakfast and laughed at.
Just late at night?
In reply to TobyA:
War crimes are covered by international law, surely?
The distinction here is that we are discussing US national law being applied internationally. What's going to happen next? Is California going to start demanding that anyone under the age of 21 found in a pub in the UK is shipped out for under-age drinking? Hey, I know that's not a turrrrist act, but then neither is fraud...
I'm opposed to this treaty on the grounds that the US (or the UK, if it ever came to that (yeah, right)) don't have to present evidence of wrong-doing. They simply have to state the alleged crime, identify the alleged offender accurately, say 'hey presto!' and bang! you're in handcuffs on a plane to the US.
> So Milosovic should never have been charged with war crimes?
War crimes are covered by international law, surely?
The distinction here is that we are discussing US national law being applied internationally. What's going to happen next? Is California going to start demanding that anyone under the age of 21 found in a pub in the UK is shipped out for under-age drinking? Hey, I know that's not a turrrrist act, but then neither is fraud...
I'm opposed to this treaty on the grounds that the US (or the UK, if it ever came to that (yeah, right)) don't have to present evidence of wrong-doing. They simply have to state the alleged crime, identify the alleged offender accurately, say 'hey presto!' and bang! you're in handcuffs on a plane to the US.
In reply to TobyA:
What did you think of the rdiculous sentence handed down to Oric by the war crimes court? Justice certainly wasnt seen to be done by my serbian friends.
> (In reply to Hotbad Peteel)
>
> [...]
>
> So Milosovic should never have been charged with war crimes?
>
> [...]
>
> So Milosovic should never have been charged with war crimes?
What did you think of the rdiculous sentence handed down to Oric by the war crimes court? Justice certainly wasnt seen to be done by my serbian friends.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...