The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Refused
It sounds like an exchange. Last year Israel freed Lebanese Hezbolah militants in exchange for prisoners and the negotations which lasted for three years was conducted by the Germans.

This seems to be restricted to only Germany, so I don't see why you're having a dig at the whole of Europe, unless you have cases which concerns other European countries you would like to tell us.

Source


Israel exchanged war prisoners. Germany released a convicted murderer who was convicted in a civilian court. Israel was also not obligated by treaty to keep the prisoners in custody, while Germany was. The apologetics continue.
Reply 2
At the end of the day most countries dont give a rats ass about the USA's war on terror, why should we do what the US says all the time? If it means an exchange for a German citizen then so be it, if the US want him so bad go and get him,they like going into other countries and throwing their weight around after all.
Reply 3
Higgy
At the end of the day most countries dont give a rats ass about the USA's war on terror, why should we do what the US says all the time? If it means an exchange for a German citizen then so be it, if the US want him so bad go and get him,they like going into other countries and throwing their weight around after all.


"War on Terror" An overused catchphrase that Administrations can use every time they want to strongarm their legislatures in a grab for power.

"But we need to send suspects to damp basements in Bucharest to have their toe-nails removed with a pair of pliers because of the "War on Terror"

"But we need to be able to listen in on our citizen's domerstic phone conversations because of the "War on Terror"

"But we need to hold people in Cuba for two years without charges because of the "War on Terror"

"But we need the US Military to write the stories that are to be published in the new Iraqi Free Press because of the "War on Terror"

"But we need 90 days because of the "War on Terror"

And so ad infinitum. Utterly Banal.
Reply 4
Howie, you've softened...:eek: :p:

--------------

Oh, and Bizzy, when were Germany allies of the US? IIRC, they opposed the war on Iraq - not something allies do is it?
Reply 5
Socrates
Howie, you've softened...:eek: :p:


No, he's grown a pair of principles. :biggrin:
Reply 6
I think us "soft" Europeans are opposed to extraditing people so they can be tortured and executed. Oh well
Bismarck
Source

Allies my a**.


England and many other European countries went to war based on lies against the will of millions of their countries civilians.

Billions of pounds of the countries capitol, which could have been better spent on the NHS or education system, was instead withered away on an American led invasion, arguably to maintain their relationship with the US.

Yet you have the audacity to criticise the whole of Europe on the basis of 1 exchange? There are many American convicted murderers (in various areas of conflict) that have been exchanged under similar scenario. It seems to me you have one rule for America and a different rule for everyone else.
Um... Apagg, do you care to tell us which federal prisons have been shown to torture prisoners?

Also, you don't even know if the man would be convicted of the crime, but you're willing to allow him to evade due process because of the potential punishment for his alleged crime? That's a rather results-oriented outlook you have on the justice system.
Reply 9
psychic_satori
Um... Apagg, do you care to tell us which federal prisons have been shown to torture prisoners?

Also, you don't even know if the man would be convicted of the crime, but you're willing to allow him to evade due process because of the potential punishment for his alleged crime? That's a rather results-oriented outlook you have on the justice system.


There's great suspicion that the US tortures prisoners, though not necessarily at home. There may not be proof, but it would be morally reprehensible to risk it.
And evade due process? Whose? If I'm not mistaken, he's a German prisoner. There's nothing that says you get him too. They choose the punishment, not you. I think it's the slight to the American ego that's angered you.
Reply 10
Apagg
There's great suspicion that the US tortures prisoners, though not necessarily at home. There may not be proof, but it would be morally reprehensible to risk it.
And evade due process? Whose? If I'm not mistaken, he's a German prisoner. There's nothing that says you get him too. They choose the punishment, not you. I think it's the slight to the American ego that's angered you.


Well, you have to admit it does look suspicious. Why on earth would the US be holding prisoners in Eastern Europe and then shipping them on to North Africa?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512140167dec14,1,7037575.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

It's certainly no secret that the US has had a long standing policy of arranging for interviews in countries that don't mind playing rough to soften up the interviewees; something which is illegal in the US.

This looks like a bit of a stinker to me. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, probably is.........
Reply 11
The US seems to think that everybody in the Western World supports its war on terror but most of it doesnt! The arrogance of the US and the crap it feeds its citizens defies belief. Do we really need America to 'help' us?
Apagg
There's great suspicion that the US tortures prisoners, though not necessarily at home. There may not be proof, but it would be morally reprehensible to risk it.


Anything is possible...Perhaps there is cannibalism and voodoo going on in British prisons...does that mean that the courts should not dish out any prison sentences because they don't want to risk that a convicted criminal will be forced to suffer in such conditions?


And evade due process? Whose? If I'm not mistaken, he's a German prisoner. There's nothing that says you get him too. They choose the punishment, not you. I think it's the slight to the American ego that's angered you.


We have extradition treaties so that alleged criminals are sent back to a country that they are suspected of committing a crime in. In the case of this man, he was also convicted of a crime in Germany, so his extradition to the US for presecution should have been conducted immediately upon his release from German prison. They get to choose his punishment for his crime in Germany, but the United States has the right to put him on trial for his crimes in this country, just as Britain would have the right if he were suspected of crimes there.

It's the slight to legally-binding international treaties that angers me. Of course, it's not a surprise, as Europeans will sign any treaty without any intentions to obey it. :rolleyes:
Reply 13
psychic_satori
Anything is possible...Perhaps there is cannibalism and voodoo going on in British prisons...does that mean that the courts should not dish out any prison sentences because they don't want to risk that a convicted criminal will be forced to suffer in such conditions?




We have extradition treaties so that alleged criminals are sent back to a country that they are suspected of committing a crime in. In the case of this man, he was also convicted of a crime in Germany, so his extradition to the US for presecution should have been conducted immediately upon his release from German prison. They get to choose his punishment for his crime in Germany, but the United States has the right to put him on trial for his crimes in this country, just as Britain would have the right if he were suspected of crimes there.

It's the slight to legally-binding international treaties that angers me. Of course, it's not a surprise, as Europeans will sign any treaty without any intentions to obey it. :rolleyes:


:rofl: the hypocrisy!!
Reply 14
psychic_satori
Anything is possible...Perhaps there is cannibalism and voodoo going on in British prisons...does that mean that the courts should not dish out any prison sentences because they don't want to risk that a convicted criminal will be forced to suffer in such conditions?




We have extradition treaties so that alleged criminals are sent back to a country that they are suspected of committing a crime in. In the case of this man, he was also convicted of a crime in Germany, so his extradition to the US for presecution should have been conducted immediately upon his release from German prison. They get to choose his punishment for his crime in Germany, but the United States has the right to put him on trial for his crimes in this country, just as Britain would have the right if he were suspected of crimes there.

It's the slight to legally-binding international treaties that angers me. Of course, it's not a surprise, as Europeans will sign any treaty without any intentions to obey it. :rolleyes:


The difference is that there have been no serious accusations of the above, with no groups claiming to have evidence of such acts, whereas Amnesty International claims to have proof that America extradites prisoners for torture. These claims were serious enough that European leaders took Condolezza Rice to task about it, and her answer was somewhat ambiguous.

As for the international law, to quote your president "International law? I'll have to check with my lawyer about that" There's no body enforcing it, it is effectively a matter of goodwill between nations, and relationships between Europe and the US are hardly great at the moment. Add to that the worry of torture, counter to the Human Rights Convention (another tricky bit of international law, I'll admit) and I'm not surprised Germany decided not to do what America wanted.


As for the extradition treaty itself


Generally, an extradition treaty requires that a country seeking extradition be able to show that:

* The relevant crime is sufficiently serious.
* There exists a prima facie case against the individual sought.
* The event in question qualifies as a crime in both countries. This is known as the principle of "dual criminality".
* The extradited person can reasonably expect a fair trial in the receiving end.
* The likely penalty will be proportionate to the crime.
....
Many countries, such as Mexico, Canada and most European ones, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not subsequently be passed or carried out.


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition)

Perhaps Germany suspects the last two conditions will not be met? America isn't known for treating suspected terrorists that humanely. And of course, there's the risk of the death penalty.
Reply 15
I do not view Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation.

And what about all the ex dictators and torturers living in the US?
Reply 16
Socrates
Oh, and Bizzy, when were Germany allies of the US? IIRC, they opposed the war on Iraq - not something allies do is it?


Since they had 100,000 American troops stationed in their country.

--------------

Higgy
At the end of the day most countries dont give a rats ass about the USA's war on terror, why should we do what the US says all the time? If it means an exchange for a German citizen then so be it, if the US want him so bad go and get him,they like going into other countries and throwing their weight around after all.


You see no problem with appeasing terrorists and allowing a convicted murderer out of prison at the same time?

--------------

Apagg
Perhaps Germany suspects the last two conditions will not be met? America isn't known for treating suspected terrorists that humanely. And of course, there's the risk of the death penalty.


Absolute bullsh*t. America has extredition treaties with all EU countries specifying that any extradited prisoner wouldn't be executed. The international system is based on respect for signed treaties. It's the only aspect of international law which has historically been enforced.

I wonder how you'd feel if someone killed a member of your family, convicted of the crime, and then released out of prison to appease a terrorist group.
Reply 17
Northumbrian
I do not view Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation.

Thing is, the US does.

Bizzy, why are the American troops there? If I was an American, I would be complaining if my tax money was being spent on forces being kept in a country that wasn't even an ally!
Reply 18
Socrates
Thing is, the US does.


So does the EU.

Bizzy, why are the American troops there? If I was an American, I would be complaining if my tax money was being spent on forces being kept in a country that wasn't even an ally!


Because they were needed there during the Cold War and because the Germans have been whining that we don't remove all the troops at once for economic reasons.
Reply 19
Bismarck
So does the EU.



Because they were needed there during the Cold War and because the Germans have been whining that we don't remove all the troops at once for economic reasons.


Plus the Military needs something to do and a reason to continue enjoying a very large chunk of tax dollars.

And of course, a slimmed down military is not good for private business either. Who else is going to buy all those Hummers?

Latest

Trending

Trending