Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4650543.stm

    Basically under agreements made, people can be extradited to the US with very little evidence being presented, yet the reverse can't happen because the US says the constiution forbids it.

    Why in gods name are we letting this happen!?!
    Be they accused of supporting islamic terrorism or supporting fraud, if they are biriths citizens and the crimes are ALLEGED to have occured in britain, why are we letting thm be extradited to a country with (by our standards) barbaric penal codes?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I cant read the article (viva cencorship!) but as far as I was aware, in the past many countries have refused to extradite prisoners to the US unless they were given assurances that they would not be put to death. Maybe this is different though??
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    I cant read the article
    Extradition law criticised by MPs

    Babar Ahmad, pictured in green, is fighting extradition to the US
    The UK's extradition laws have come under fire from MPs as the deadline nears for the home secretary to decide the fate of a British terror suspect.
    A judge has said Babar Ahmad can be deported to the US. Charles Clarke is due to decide on the case by 15 July.

    At a cross-party meeting Conservative MP Boris Johnson said extradition rules introduced in 2003 were "grotesque".

    Liberal Democrat peer Lord Goodhart QC said Mr Ahmad and other defendants should be put on trial in the UK.

    Evidence gap

    UK legislation designed to speed up the extradition of terror suspects came into force in January 2004.

    Under the act there is no requirement for the US authorities to present a prima facie case, although UK authorities must do so in seeking extraditions from the US.

    Mr Ahmad, 31, a computer expert from London, is accused of running websites that supported terrorists and urged Muslims to fight a holy war.

    "It is offensive that our government should insist on deporting them to the United States without testing the evidence in a court in the UK."

    Lord Goodhart QC
    Lib Dem peer
    His MP, Labour's Sadiq Khan, told the meeting inside Parliament Mr Ahmad denied the allegations but was happy to "face the music" in a British court.

    Sixty MPs have also signed a parliamentary petition calling for the government to change the rules. A delegation is also going to the home secretary about Mr Ahmad's case.

    The extradition rules, which have yet to be tested in the High Court, also apply to people such as the three UK men allegedly connected to the Enron scandal.

    Poodle comparison

    As MP for the Enron charge trio, Mr Johnson said it was contrary to UK law that British citizens should be extradited for crimes allegedly committed in the UK.

    The Serious Fraud Office has said there were insufficient grounds for launching a case against the men in the UK.

    Attacking the rules, Mr Johnson said: "To call it poodling is an insult to poodles."

    Lord Goodhart explained that the rules followed a US-UK treaty signed in 2003 which still had not been ratified by the American Senate.

    "To call it poodling is an insult to poodles"

    Boris Johnson MP
    He said double jeopardy laws meant a suspect who had been tried in the UK could not be extradited for the same offence, whether found guilty or not guilty.

    But if prosecuting authorities in the UK decided the case was so weak that was not worth prosecuting, the suspect could be deported.

    "It is, I believe, offensive that our government should insist on deporting them to the United States without testing the evidence in a court in the UK," he said.

    Modernising

    Respect MP George Galloway said it was a "monstrosity" even to suggest extraditing suspects to the country responsible for the Guantanamo Bay prison camps.

    A Home Office spokeswoman said it did not require prima facie evidence from the 40 countries which had signed a European extradition agreement.

    The US could not reciprocate as its rules on the issue were enshrined in its constitution, she said. But it did not make sense to recreate an "unequal relationship" with the US.

    Extradition laws dating back to 1972 had now been simplified and modernised, said the spokeswoman.

    The process was now faster, something which helped witnesses, courts, victims and fugitives, she said.

    Judges could not extradite anybody where they feared a serious breach of human rights and there was a right of appeal to the High Court, she added.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks

    .. doesnt seem that bad to me. The double jeapordy issue is a tough call, but I can understand extradition rules, although I think they would be fairer if they were universal for both countries.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Kondar)
    Thanks

    .. doesnt seem that bad to me. The double jeapordy issue is a tough call, but I can understand extradition rules, although I think they would be fairer if they were universal for both countries.
    i dont see how it is right for the US to try a brit citizen for a 'crime' that not only was supposedly commited in britain but actually there isn't enough evidence to prosecute under british laws.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    i dont see how it is right for the US to try a brit citizen for a 'crime' that not only was supposedly commited in britain but actually there isn't enough evidence to prosecute under british laws.
    I agree. I think this just shows how immensely powerful and influential the US are and will continue to be in the future. Not good *shakes head*.

    Very true!
    I mean if we think fraud is punishable by 5 years in prison, and the americans think it is punishable by 30 years (unless you are a celebrity role model) then why should OUR citizens who have commited said crimes on OUR soil be given a punishment by them?

    And they dare moan about the international criminal court...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    i dont see how it is right for the US to try a brit citizen for a 'crime' that not only was supposedly commited in britain but actually there isn't enough evidence to prosecute under british laws.
    It isn't right - it's convenient. Too much trouble changing our laws, so the gov. which wants these barmy beards off our streets, sends them to the US. If you care about the assault on our ancient freedoms, the main parties shouldn't get your vote.

    Resist the urge to conformity and reflected glory! Rebellion!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    i dont see how it is right for the US to try a brit citizen for a 'crime' that not only was supposedly commited in britain but actually there isn't enough evidence to prosecute under british laws.
    Plenty of countries (including Britain) have laws with extra-territorial application.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Jamie)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4650543.stm

    Basically under agreements made, people can be extradited to the US with very little evidence being presented, yet the reverse can't happen because the US says the constiution forbids it.
    But all the link is saying is that the U.S. requires a prima facie case. That's not a big deal, just show enough evidence that the person is guilty and the U.S. will be happy to extradite them
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    One rule for them and another one for everyone else. Lovely.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    i dont see how it is right for the US to try a brit citizen for a 'crime' that not only was supposedly commited in britain but actually there isn't enough evidence to prosecute under british laws.
    This seems to be a rare situation since we are dealing with computers and what could be called intellectual crime. Im sure there are countless countries that do not have legitimate legislation that can deal with these kinds of crimes. The extradition laws are universal and not just directed at any particular countries.

    I can understand your concerns regarding the treatment of the rest of our 'detainees' but say he got a full legitimate trial. You have to understand that if there are threats beyond us soil and those threats are not being addressed, then the US is obligated to take action... right?
 
 
 

3,015

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.