You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Today a man is going to be extradited to the US for selling batteries to the Iranians. Seeing as the US has a proven history of torture and prison sentences that are somewhat draconian do you think we should send him?
IIRC the US can ask any UK national to be extradited and there's nothing we can do about it.
We can't deport a known terrorist but anyone of us is fair game.
To be honest I know very little of the case I would just like a level playing field.
Saw the same news report. To be fair we and US have a joint extradition agreement. All the report said was that the US had made more applications than UK. The defendent was saying it was unfair as he was not being protected and he should t be extradited to face the charges. Not sure what his point was but I think we can agree he will face a fair trial. He alleged it wads CIA sting operation. Well good, then they have caught someone pedaling restricted items to Iran. I would have thought any honest business man would have no grounds to fear an investigation and chance to prove his innoncence.
Yes, the requesting authorities in the states; United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement have presented a probable cause to the courts in the US to obtain an indictment and request extradition and this has been accepted by the courts, they can't request extradition from the Uk without recourse to their courts. The UK courts have said there was no entrapment and have agreed his extradition is perfectly lawful.
Obviously though it's an unfair agreement;
[i]"Figures released ...show between January 2004 and July 2011, there were 130 requests by the US for people to be extradited from the UK, compared with 54 requests from the UK to the US.
A total of seven US requests were refused by the UK, compared with none of the UK's requests."[/i] ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15351357)
To be fair we and US have a joint extradition agreement that's incredibly one-sided
FTFY.
In reality he's screwed given that if he pleads not guilty and the jury find him guilty then he'll never see his home again and even if he plea bargains with the prosecution he'll probably still not see his home again given he's 65!
Run
To be fair we and US have a joint extradition agreement that's incredibly one-sided
FTFY.
If you've 'fixed that' perhaps you'd care to explain why it's 'incredibly one sided' - I seem to have missed that bit.
Note the extradition figures kilo has provided. 😉
In reality he's screwed given that if he pleads not guilty and the jury find him guilty then he'll never see his home again and even if he plea bargains with the prosecution he'll probably still not see his home again given he's 65!
Isn't this fairly usual for a convicted criminal - that they go to prison?
perhaps you'd care to explain why it's 'incredibly one sided
Controversy surrounds the US-UK extradition treaty of 2003 which was implemented in this act. It has been claimed to be one-sided[2] because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa[3].
Note the extradition figures kilo has provided.
i did and it seems we never refuse, they sometimes do and they ask more than us but their population is roughly x 5 of ours. Could you explain why you think these figures supports your view that it is equal?
perhaps you could explain why it is not one sided once you have done that?
Why are we extraditing people who did things in this country that are not illegal to a country where it may be illegal and they get no legal aid once there with which to defend themselves?
If you've 'fixed that' perhaps you'd care to explain why it's 'incredibly one sided' - I seem to have missed that bit.
because the requests from the US only require a suspicion of wrongdoing whereas the UK requests have to have probable cause i.e. any american citizen has more protection from extridition under their 4th amendment to the constitution. british citizens don't have such protections.
Controversy surrounds the US-UK extradition treaty of 2003 which was implemented in this act. It has been claimed to be one-sided[2] because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa[3].
Form the same article 😉
In response to these concerns, the Home Secretary Theresa May appointed The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Scott Baker to conduct an official review of the UK's extradition treaties, with the assistance of two independent extradition experts. The review was directed to address evidence standards and whether the US-UK Extradition Treaty is unbalanced[8]. Sir Scott Baker's report was presented to the Home Secretary on September 30, 2011, and concluded that there is no substantial difference in evidence standards, that the treaty is balanced and that there is not "any basis to conclude that extradition from the United Kingdom to the US operates unfairly or oppressively"[9][10]
i did and it seems we never refuse, they sometimes do and they ask more than us but their population is roughly x 5 of ours. Could you explain why you think these figures supports your view that it is equal?
perhaps you could explain why it is not one sided
Sure. we refused 7 of the US' requests, they refused none of ours.
because the requests from the US only require a suspicion of wrongdoing whereas the UK requests have to have probable cause i.e. any american citizen has more protection from extridition under their 4th amendment to the constitution. british citizens don't have such protections.
From the beeb..
Are the tests the same?
The 2003 Act effectively made it easier for the US to seek the extradition of someone from the UK because the US would no longer need to provide a "prima facie" case to British courts - proving your case on the face of available evidence.
Campaigners say this is unjust because someone can be extradited without the case being properly tested. But supporters of the treaty and the related British 2003 Act argue that the removal of the prima facie test simply means that suspects face the same broad test in each country.
The Home Office's extradition review argued that there was no real difference between the US tests of "probable cause" and the introduction of "reasonable suspicion".
The panel said that both tests amounted to the basic standard of proof used by police officers in both countries to make an arrest.
But critics say that's a red herring. Campaign group Friends Extradited says the real issue of imbalance is that while the US courts don't allow an extradition until a judge has examined the quality of the evidence, because of the constitutional rights of the suspect, a British judge is merely examining the quality of the application - not the case the individual faces on arrival in the US.
from the same article you quoted
ah i missread the numbers my error and i can see why you think the omission of the rest is one sided [ I wonder why you dod the same though 😉 ]. I considered it to show that the debate over whether the "burden of proof" is one sided or not was inconclusive but the stuff i quoted was unambiguous.
nonetheless [ despite my obvious error/misreading of the numbers turned down] it still remains the case that they ask more than us but their population is roughly x 5 of ours.[ i just tripled checked i was right this time
it is also still the case that
it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right;
this is certainly one sided whatever we want to say about the burden of proof debate
In light of their incredibly cooperative handling of a multitude of PIRA suspects during the 80's and 90's, I think we should carefully consider every single extradition request they make.
And then, do absolutely nothing about it.
He'll plead guilty
You pretty much have to in the US - unless you're very rich
Also, the differences in sentences for pleading guilty Vs pleading not guilty and being found guilty are enormous
98% of all people indicted plead guilty in the US
What baffles me, is that why did we not prosecute him? Surely we too have an embargo on these sort of exports to Iran.
He is not denying selling the batteries, but claiming "entrapment", well if you keep on the right side of the law, you cant be "entraped".
Maybe he could say there were Magicshine batteries for the new fad of night MTBing in Iran.
I think we can agree he will face a fair trial
Well that's where you're wrong.
We should not have extradition treaties with countries that torture and have the death sentence.
epicyclo, I believe that the USA do not "officially" torture. It is unlikely that the gentleman will be "rendered" to a Middle Eastern or African country for a little errr local hospitality. And I think we insist that anyone extradited will not face the death penalty.
It is unlikely that the gentleman will be "rendered" to a Middle Eastern or African country for a little errr local hospitality.
He'll be hugely grateful for that when he is playing doctors and nurses with Bubba. 😀
He'd best change his name to Oliver North.
A friend of mine was extradited to US, what I find so disturbing about the US system is the nature of plea bargaining. His total potential sentence was 35 years I think, but he was offered a plea bargain based on a sentence of less than a tenth of that. Even if you are innocent you are going to take that deal because the downside of losing is so great and I don't think that is justice as you have effectively left with no choice but to plead guilty,
epicyclo, I believe that the USA do not "officially" torture.
I'm fairly sure that very few countries "officially" torture. It's not something which governments generally tend to admit doing.
That doesn't however stop Britain from refusing to agree to extradition on the basis that the country concerned practices torture.
Having said that, the man in this particular case, Christopher Tappin, looks far too Anglo-Saxon to be at any risk of torture in the US. I think we can reasonably assume that he will not be tortured.
Obviously if his name was Abdul-Jabaar Siddiqui and he struggled to string an english sentence, then I guess there would always be the possibility that he might receive assistance in refreshing his memory with the use of waterboarding.
I think we can reasonably assume that he will not be tortured.
Quite, well not by the state. But as said above, if Bubba who is serving 40 years for crack supplying feels like hitting a few balls with the esteemed Golf Captain in the 19th, he might wish his name was Abdul-Jabaar Siddiqui.
Ya, hang him as he wants to get rich ... 🙄
Quite, well not by the state. But as said above, if Bubba who is serving 40 years for crack supplying feels like hitting a few balls with the esteemed Golf Captain in the 19th, he might wish his name was Abdul-Jabaar Siddiqui.
My friend who spent time in prisons in both the US and UK said life was far more pleasant in US prisons than the ones here. People are jailed for so long over there, they find a way of co-existing.
Mefty, friends with international crime bosses?
Hardly, he was accused of what is essentially white collar crime, he pleaded guilty as the downside risk was so great (as detailed above) and for difficulty encountered trying to mount a defence, and he ended up serving some time over there and finished his sentence over here.
I think the point is that if you commit a crime you should face the penalty. Whining that its not fair isnt a defence for breaking the law harsh penalty or not. All the above had the option not to break the law and avoid entanglement in extradition to face the consequences - sorry no sympathy. And I dont suppose they extradite you for petty crimes.
In light of their incredibly cooperative handling of a multitude of PIRA suspects during the 80's and 90's, I think we should carefully consider every single extradition request they make.And then, do absolutely nothing about it.
in light of them fighting against British forces in 1775 we should never talk to them again! Harrumph!
🙄
All the above had the option not to break the law and avoid entanglement in extradition to face the consequences - sorry no sympathy.
ah right, I didn't realise they were already guilty
Why didn't you mention it earlier, it would have saved having a thread about it
I think the routine use of solitary confinement qualifies as a reason not to send people to face trial in the Land of the Free
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17162088
Why?
I have absolutely no problem with solitary confinement being used even for extended periods. What else are they going to do? Give them a stern talking to?
I think the routine use of solitary confinement qualifies as a reason not to send people to face trial in the Land of the Free
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17162088
br />
Awww, was "the merchant of death" a bit lonely.
Diddums.
I think the point is that if you commit a crime you should face the penalty. Whining that its not fair isnt a defence for breaking the law harsh penalty or not. All the above had the option not to break the law and avoid entanglement in extradition to face the consequences - sorry no sympathy. And I dont suppose they extradite you for petty crimes.
Well that will save a lot of money getting rid of judges and juries.
I think the point is that if you commit a crime you should face the penalty. Whining that its not fair isnt a defence for breaking the law harsh penalty or not.
And you don't think that a British citizen who commits an alleged crime in Britain should be tried in a British court ?
The US will not extradite US citizens to the UK for alleged crimes committed in the US.
The US even refuses to send USAF pilots to give evidence to British courts investigating the unlawful killing of British soldiers in 'blue-on-blue' incidents.
BTW there are some really dumb comments on here, eg :
In light of their incredibly cooperative handling of a multitude of PIRA suspects during the 80's and 90's, I think we should carefully consider every single extradition request they make.And then, do absolutely nothing about it.
[b][i]"in light of them fighting against British forces in 1775 we should never talk to them again! Harrumph!"[/i][/b] 🙄
There's hardly a comparison between a fighting for independence over 200 years ago and recent attempts to cooperate in fighting terrorism 🙄
Why?
I have absolutely no problem with solitary confinement being used even for extended periods. What else are they going to do? Give them a stern talking to?
What else are they going to do? How about "not" using solitary confinement for extended periods ?
What else are they going to do? How about "not" using solitary confinement for extended periods ?
Why not ?
He didn't give a shit about anyone else when he was illegally trading in Arms all over the world.
So now I'm returning the favour.
Lock him up in Solitary for life if they feel like it, I couldn't give a toss.
Lock him up in Solitary for life if they feel like it, I couldn't give a toss.
Which isn't quite the same as saying there is no other alternative to solitary confinement for extended periods.
The alternative to not locking them up in solitary confinement for extended periods is "not" to lock them up in solitary confinement for extended periods. It is quite ridiculous to suggest that there is no alternative.
As to "why not ?", well some people believe that because solitary confinement for extended periods is widely regarded as a form of torture :
[url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/solitary-confinement-is-a-torture-unworthy-of-us-prisons/2012/01/25/gIQA2VX6TQ_story.html ]Solitary torture[/url]
[i]"U.S. scientists have pointed out that solitary confinement is a form of torture and that few can retain their sanity after a long period in isolation. It is routinely used in China to force confessions out of suspects. I know many who have been through this, and I have seen that the survivors are often partially or wholly mentally crippled.
Imagine how shocked I was to find years later that we, the United States of America, hold more human beings in long-term solitary confinement than any other country in the world. I had supposed it would be China — but, no, it’s us.
The commonwealth of Virginia is one of the worst offenders.
.............
How I learned to survive and to regain my health is not the point. The point is that solitary confinement is undeniably cruel and unusual punishment. Long-term solitary confinement should be declared unconstitutional. And it is a disgrace for the great commonwealth of Virginia, given the glorious role it has played in our country’s history and its proximity to our nation’s capital, to be guilty of large-scale imposition of this torture on any human being."[/i]
Obviously objections on the grounds that it is a form of torture is unlikely to hold much sway with you, as you have clearly shown that you don't, in your own words, "give a toss".
I'm not suggesting that there is no alternative to Solitary, obviously there is, loads of options.
But as you correctly said, in that particular case, I couldn't care less.
Even if some people have the opinion that it's a form of "torture"
In the case mentioned, I still don't care.
Well you go ahead and firmly claim the moral low ground. Specially in the context of "justice" and the pretext of being concerned about illegal arms trade [i]"all over the world"[/i].
It makes perfect sense.
He didn't give a shit about anyone else when he was illegally trading in Arms all over the world.
What
would those be, exactly? He believed he was being contracted to supply batteries to a Dutch car company, AFAIAA, so since when has a battery been synonimous with a weapon? It could be a component part, obviously, but then so can many, many other innocuous components. If the FBI set up a shell company to entice people to sell items believing it to be legit, but the company is set up to entrap people then I believe that is a defence in the States. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Many here seem to have tried him and found him guilty based purely on whatever flimsy evidence has been leaked to the press by the Americans.arms
He believed he was being contracted to supply batteries to a Dutch car company, AFAIAA, so since when has a battery been synonimous with a weapon? It could be a component part, obviously, but then so can many, many other innocuous components.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Tappin ]Wikipedia[/url] provides a bit more detail - though of course there's not much more reason to trust th e article, than there is to trust your writing. 🙂
Apparently the batteries are specific to Hawk missiles, supplied to the Iranians in the 80's.
Well put [b]CountZero[/b]
It's like this with a lot of cases you hear about. Seems once someone is arrested they are automatically guilty. Which really is a worrying trend, like a lynch mob mentality but without the pitchforks and flaming torches.
Quite depressing reading some of the comments above. To think we share the trails with people who are that close minded 😐
The arms dealer he was talking about CountZero was the Russian one mentioned earlier in the thread, the one in the New York slammer
I wouldn't want to face a US jury. The media out there will no doubt have pictured him as osama's main man and what's a good ol patriotic boy to do but send his Commie ass to prison.
It could be a component part
It [i]was[/i] apparently a component part. A component of a weapon sold illegally to Iran by the US government in defiance of its own arms embargo......during the Iraq-Iran War the US government was selling weapons to both sides so that they could kill each other more effectively. Hawk Missiles to the Iranians and chemical weapons to the Iraqis, for example.
Of course the US government made sure that those who were responsible for the illegal Iran-Contra scandal were never punished. Oliver North received a 3 year [i]suspended[/i] sentence which was later overturned when he successfully appealed for his "rights" under the 5th Amended. He certainly never received solitary confinement.
Ronald Reagan got away with it scot free ..... because he "didn't know" what the US government was doing !
And despite being found guilty by the International Court of Justice the US never paid the compensation they were ordered to pay Nicaragua, because as a permanent member of the Security Council they blocked any enforcement of the ruling.
25 years later Oliver North is seen by many as a national hero, whilst the US government pursues an obscure old man in the UK which they have allegedly entrapped and who faces the possibility of 35 years imprisonment.
There's not a whole lot of "justice" in this story.
Seems once someone is arrested they are automatically guilty. Which really is a worrying trend, like a lynch mob mentality but without the pitchforks and flaming torches.Quite depressing reading some of the comments above. To think we share the trails with people who are that close minded
Oh the irony...
Looking back, I only see one poster possibly prejudging guilt.
Looking back, I only see one poster possibly prejudging guilt.
Your right, well done.
I was trying to make two separate points, hence the gap in the text. Will try harder to differentiate more clearly in future.
Not sure why it's an ironic statement though, guess you just like the word 😉
If the FBI set up a shell company to entice people to sell items believing it to be legit, but the company is set up to entrap people then I believe that is a defence in the States. Innocent until proven guilty
A defence the UK courts found unsustainable in his recent appeal, nor did they find the prospect of extradition "oppresive". I don't know whether he's guilty, the original question was about the extradition treaty, as has been said he seems to have taken his case to the courts in this country and it's been rejected.
AFAIK the level of suspicion / proof for this treaty is no different to extradition under an EAW (judicial desicion to seek arrest) which goes on without a murmur of dissent
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17266000 ]Extradited Briton Chris Tappin denied bail in US[/url]
[i]"He wore an orange jumpsuit and had his feet and one hand shackled - the other was left free so that he could use a cane."[/i]
No one wants a prisoner to flee, but it really is time that the United States joined other civilised nations into the 21st century.
This geezer is still innocent until the point when, or if, it is proven otherwise.
Shame on the British government for not demanding that a British citizen be treated in a more humane way.
I have no doubt that they would have had something to say if an old man with a walking stick and British nationality had been hauled before an Iranian court in shackles.
+1 ^^^^