I found this new really interesting this morning and ask the question "should he be extradited?".
http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4721183.stm
Even if you take this last part out
"The British public need to ask themselves why British citizens are being extradited to the USA when the US government has not signed the extradition treaty between the two countries."
Should the guy really be extradited when his crime was committed in the UK?
Apart from the fact I actually find it all hilarious that someone could so easily gain access to the US government information and mess about with it, I think it would be very wrong for the UK courts to agree upon this extradition order.
So, what do you think?
I think the US is ggoing through the courts over there to get extrdition. If they had a treaty they would not need to go through the courts to extradite(I think)
If the offence was against the US then why should he not be extradited?
I think the US is ggoing through the courts over there to get extrdition. If they had a treaty they would not need to go through the courts to extradite(I think)
If the offence was against the US then why should he not be extradited?
No, a country would still have to apply through the court system to have someone extradited - you simply cannot have countries asking and being granted people without the accused having the opportunity to counter it.
Australia rejected a similar case last year and the three NatWest bankers that were involved in Enron's scams were fighting in the UK courts, so as not to be extradited to US to face charges.
Even if you take this last part out:
"The British public need to ask themselves why British citizens are being extradited to the USA when the US government has not signed the extradition treaty between the two countries."
Should the guy really be extradited when his crime was committed in the UK?
The only reason I think he should not be extradited is because the US has not yet ratified the new UK-US Extradition Treaty of 2003. Otherwise, yes, I think he should be. He specifically targeted US government and military institutions, deleted government files and caused thousands of dollars of damage by his actions.
...I actually find it all hilarious that someone could so easily gain access to the US government information....
I'm afraid I don't find it hilarious. Ironic, maybe - given that the US are always shouting about the extensive securities in situ for it's citizens' protection - but it's certainly not hilarious, IMO. I find it rather disturbing that government institutions could so easily be hacked by a self-confessed "computer nerd". :shock:
....you simply cannot have countries asking and being granted people without the accused having the opportunity to counter it.
I would have thought so too, however, as far as I can determine, under the old Treaty the state requesting extradition had to provide evidence of the facts of the case. Under the new UK-US Extradition Treaty of 2003 the state seeking extradition is only required to provide a detailed statement of the facts of the offence/s. Astoundingly, this is not a reciprocal agreement – the evidence requirement on the US was dropped altogether, while the UK still must provide evidence to the standard of a ‘reasonable’ demonstration of guilt.
If this is indeed the case, the US may well be permitted to extradite. Although the new Treaty hasn’t yet been ratified by the US, the UK have already signed this retrospective piece of legislation and seem intent on upholding their ‘part of the bargain’. Attention is currently focused on the case of Babar Ahmad, a British citizen who is accused of terrorist-related activities by the US (they allege he was involved in soliciting funds for Afghanistan and Chechnya and claim he made a floppy disk with US Navel Battleship plans).
It seems ridiculous to me that the US could be permitted to extradite British citizens without having to provide prima facie evidence, especially as the Treaty demands no reciprocity! I feel it is a gross infringement of Human Rights.
Ellie - I most certainly stand corrected. smile
Having read the 2003 law now, I agree with you 100% that it is ridiculously unbalanced, thanks to a constitutional right that American citizens have, which British citizens do not.
What a joke - why does Britain keep poodling like this? Have we no pride?
Think he should have a trail in the UK, but let the US present its evidence to convict him. Often worries me that things over here can appear hap hazard. There are so many convictions based upon circumstantial evidence or a plea agreement.
In fact I have heard that when its a home grown hack they tend to reach an agreement with the offender, saying that they won't press charges if said hacker does not release the source code and tells them how he done it.
Ellie - I most certainly stand corrected. :smile:
No probs, pilgrim. :grin: The principle seems too unreasonable to be true - and more than just a little unnerving! :shock:
In defence of the new Extradition Treaty, a spokeswoman for the Home Office (Helen Bower) stated "Even if extradition was ordered there is a right of appeal to the High Court." I wonder how many appeals are permissible and how likely it would be that an appeal would be granted after extradition had already been ordered? I rather think the petitioner/s would be SOL! US contempt for foreign judicial systems and in particular its disregard for judgments from the International Court of Justice has been evidenced in the past.
His crime is against the American Government, the American courts should be allowed to exradite him and charge him.
I don't find it hilarious, I do however find it sad that gov. computers could be so easily hacked into. Doesn't say much for security does it.
Makes it very scary when most businesses are trying to go to online payments of bills, and all information is online.
What makes anyone think a government computer is any more secure than a corporate or even home computer?
I'm afraid I don't find it hilarious. Ironic, maybe - given that the US are always shouting about the extensive securities in situ for it's citizens' protection - but it's certainly not hilarious, IMO. I find it rather disturbing that government institutions could so easily be hacked by a self-confessed "computer nerd". :shock:
Quite right, Ellie, ironic would have been a better word to use and more appropriate for what I was meaning.
I do know that EU countries don't extradite to the US if there is a possibility of the death penalty. That's about all I know tho... roll
I do know that EU countries don't extradite to the US if there is a possibility of the death penalty. That's about all I know tho... :roll:
That is a proviso of the US-EU Extradition Treaty (and of the new UK-US Treaty), however the US do not consider themselves accountable to any International Criminal Court. In 1999 the State of Arizona breached an International Court of Justice order to suspend the exectution of a German national pending a judgement in relation to a breach of international obligations. Contemptably, they carried out the execution anyway, taking the stance that "an order of the International Court of Justice indicating provisional measures is not binding and does not furnish a basis for judicial relief". :shock:
That incident alone implies any breach of international obligations or human rights which might occur following extradition to the US would not be effectively judicially reviewable. So much for the "right to appeal "! :shock:
It's that weird unrecognition (is that a word...anyone?) of the ICC that gets the US into much bother. It reminds me of the decision last week by the State Dept and Dept of Defense not to release hundreds of photos and video footage from Gitmo and Abu Ghraib on the basis that "it would defy the Geneva convention." Bit bloody late to recognize it now!
I think he should be employed by MI 5 myself..............