Why is Babar Ahmed being extradited to the US?

Oh and the only reason he has been detained 8 years was because he kept appealing against rulings to extradite him. If the man really was actively involved in the promotion of terror whats to stop him committing an act of terror if he is bailed?

I know, its the treaty that everyone is claiming is completely ridiculous and unfair. Its a one way system where by they can request our citizens with no evidence but we cant reciprocate. Tell me how that isn't putting America before us?

It is the extradition treaty that everyone is claiming is the thing wrong here, not whether or not this case falls under it or not. Its an inherently unfair and messed up treaty and simply because it has been enacted, does not mean it can't or shouldn't change or that it is right and just.

And it is one-sided. The reason America haven't received a request in kind from us is because we cant do that:

So in this system, the Americans can extradite any British citizen they want without showing evidence. We cannot do the same because the US values its sovereignty and will not allow its citizens to be treated this way.

Do you still think its fair? Do you still agree with it?

According to the official review contucted by Sir Scott Baker "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"

We have to provide probable cause if we want someone extradited, the US has to provide reasonable suspicion, according to the review done in 2011 there is no significant difference between the two and both require almost exactly the same amount of information submitted to request an extradition.

If you want to argue sending citizens to the US without a submission of evidence is wrong, fair enough, tbh i tend to agree but i don't agree the US has an easier time getting people from the UK than we do of getting people from the US. (in regards to this treaty that is, generally our membership in the EU does make it harder for the US to get someone over but thats not really related to the extradition treaty)



We don't have to show evidence, they need to provide reasonable suspicion and we need to provide probable cause. In this instance the two terms require almost identical information and neither require any hard evidence.

I don't agree with sending people to the US without any prima facie evidence, I've wrote numerous letters to my MP about the Gary McKinnon case and how ridiculous it is the US are claiming he intentionally sought to steal their secrets and we basically have to take their word for it. However i don't view the treaty as some kind of American inspired political dominance, i disagree with the terms of the treaty for both sides as neither require prima facie evidence which in my eyes is putting to much trust in a country that although we are friends with has lied to us before and constantly seems to disregard some human rights when their feelings are hurt although never openly towards a British citizen.

I see absolutely no evidence that this treaty is one sided or the the US is abusing it, i agree the treaty is flawed and will eventually lead to some serious tensions between the UK and US so revising it now so each must provide preliminary evidence with an extradition request is a much better option. Unfortunately i don't think my MP cares since i have yet to even receive an automated template response.

It means he isn't a self-proclaimed terrorist.

That's the point: he should be tried in this country were he alledgedly collect the info, not in the US. .

1. Ive already said that there isn't actually ample evidence that he posessed the information, just that the information had been logged onto a server connected to a website concentrated in the UK- that is the crux. Is it right to prosecute someone in a court for information they dont actually have?

2. Many websites promote terrorism- stormfront for example, could be said to promote terrorism. Or websites that hold copies of the anarchists cookbook. Why arent they being prosecuted?

I'm not the only one who thinks the treaty is not fair.

the agreement can be criticized, but it is in force

as I said, it can be modified (by consensus), or terminated (as provided for by the agreement itself)

1. no evidence he is a 'terrorist'. There is evidence he had jihadist sympathies- but then again, should people be extradited for what they believe? Many people in this country sympathise with neo-nazi groups who endorse violence- should they be treated in the same way?

2. he is wanted by the US because a server linked to his website was located in the US- which was purely incidental.

the Americans can extradite any British citizen they want without showing evidence. We cannot do the same because the US values its sovereignty and will not allow its citizens to be treated this way.

Thank you for stating the obvious. Clearly, any further critical discussion is beyond you.

This is not true.

In order to obtain extradition, the US have to show "reasonable suspicion", and the UK has to show "probable cause". Neither has to show "prima facie evidence".

Better still, why extradite him to the US? Send him to Afghanistan and be done with it!!

Better still, why extradite him to the US? Send him to Afghanistan and be done with it!!

why don't you give us your opinion on this rather than regurgitating the obvious?

because we already have people, such as yourself, who are spouting judgements on the case without having the necessary detailed knowledge

best

You have no clue about this case. It's easy to write off a Muslim "terrorist" -- that word is like 'rape', few seem to care whether it's true or not and the mere accusation means you lose all public support. I guess that's why politicians and media use the word. He's a British citizen and has rights. There is no evidence of wrong doing.

To who? Him or the public? Throw him in the ****ing sea for all I care. Tired of people worrying about the "rights" that scum have.

You may as well just put a bullet in his head then?