Nick Tessla Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Two recent reports on the BBC website " 'Piracy' student Richard O'Dwyer loses extradition case A Sheffield student can be extradited to the US to face copyright infringement allegations, a judge has ruled. Richard O'Dwyer, 23, set up the TVShack website which US authorities say hosts links to pirated copyrighted films and television programmes. Iran arms accused Christopher Tappin to be extradited A retired businessman has lost a High Court fight against being extradited to the United States over charges of conspiring to sell parts for Iranian missiles. Christopher Tappin, 64, of Orpington, south-east London, denies conspiring to export the batteries for Hawk air defence missiles. He has claimed he was the victim of an FBI "sting". " In a sane world two questions would be asked 1) Is the accused a US citizen? 2) Was the alleged crime supposed to have taken place while the accused was on US soil? If the answers to the above are "no" then, of course, they should only be dealt with by the justice system in their own country. If an extradition treaty says otherwise then it should be torn up immediatley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stallard12 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 What about the extradition of Nazi war criminals to Isreael? What about all of the allied applications to Argentina for the extradition of other war criminals? What about Swedens extradition request for the Wikileaks guy on rape charges? None of the war crimes were committed in the countries of the applicants, nor were they citizens of the petitioning countries - it isn't a factor in the process of extradition. I think you are just grabbing at a cheap chance to America bash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 What about the extradition of Nazi war criminals to Isreael? What about all of the allied applications to Argentina for the extradition of other war criminals? What about Swedens extradition request for the Wikileaks guy on rape charges? None of the war crimes were committed in the countries of the applicants, nor were they citizens of the petitioning countries - it isn't a factor in the process of extradition. I think you are just grabbing at a cheap chance to America bash. Assange is accused of committing crimes in Sweden and , quite frankly , the attempt to compare the alleged offences of O'Dwyer and Tappin with the unique circumstances of prosecuting Nazi war criminals is laughable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 51st State?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stallard12 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 If a case falls within the international definition of extradition, then all cases are equal. However, I should have realized that reasonable argument plays no part in your world, whenever you see something that compromises your opinions, you just become beligerent, a sure sign that the argumant has been lost. Don't look for a reply to any further comments. 51st State Obs? Y'all can't get that lucky ! :razz: 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 Just a couple of questions on this buisiness: - were these alleged crimes commited on US soil, by the physical presence of the alleged perpetrators? Were the alleged offences illegal in the UK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 Yes, the crimes were committed in the US against US persons or organisations. No, the accused were not on US soil at the time the crimes were commited. And yes, if those same crimes had been committed in the UK they would have been illegal here. Nothing unusual in that. Crimes can be committed remotely via the internet, by phone, fax, or even good old snail mail. What has the perpetrators physical presence at the scene of the crime got to do with anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 Well, if the crimes are illegal here, why not arrest and try him here? After all, isn't that what the US Military have done to their own soldiers who committed war crimes in Afghanistan and elsewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 You are all aware of the ill conceived US/UK 2003 extradition treaty, aren't you? There's that, and the US thinking they own the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 Well, if the crimes are illegal here, why not arrest and try him here? After all, isn't that what the US Military have done to their own soldiers who committed war crimes in Afghanistan and elsewhere? Because the crimes were committed in the US, against US persons or organisations, under the jurisdiction of US courts! US (and other countries) military personnel are subject to their own Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and to the laws of their own countries whilst on active service overseas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 Where does that leave all those guys in Guantanamo then?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Technically? In a "country" which is not recognised under international law. So, outside of anyone's jurisdiction. Realistically? A lot better off than they would have been with the bullet to the head most of them deserve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Right: so we've got extrordinary rendition - which is the illegal extradition of foreign nationals from all over the world, their tempory transfer to a torture State, then on to Guantanamo - all without any rights to legal Council for the victims. They are then kept, without trial indefinately, and are being refused trial and imprisonment in the USA, due to nimby objections by local politicians. Then we've got extradition, which is the legal rendition of folk from any Country in the World, daft enough to have such a Treaty with the US. Unbelievable arrogance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Don't remember the REAL victims of those at Gitmo being afforded rights to legal council and protection of their lives and property. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Possibly cos, in some cases, there were no victims - cos the CIA made a mistake - oops! Again, more arrogance, in presuming themselves to be above the law (when it suits). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 more arrogance, in presuming themselves to be above the law (when it suits). Did the terrorists not put themselves above the law when they chose to attack innocents? and does their pathetic bleating about their own Human Rights not now smack of "when it suits"? None of us have seen the evidence against the scum in Gitmo - and none of us ever will - because it was gathered using sources and methods which would be endangered or rendered useless by revealing them. I'm not saying that the guys in the white hats got it right every time when identifying the guys in the black hats but war is like that, and far fewer innocents have passed through the gates of Gitmo than were killed in just one tower on 911, or in Bali, or Mumbai, or London, or Madrid. You can't fight that level of unreasoned hatred with feather beds and free lawyers. You use every means at your disposal to exterminate it or you roll over and die yourself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 On the contrary, if you descend to the same level as the scum your trying to defeat, you lose the moral high ground, the very ground your fighting to preserve in the first place. But mistakes do matter too, as they merely increase resentment, and serve as a recruiting sergeant for yet another generation of terrorists. However, the Yanks have never been noted for their subtlety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Moral high ground, my a**e! We (the worlds super-powers) supply arms both directly and indirectly to every tin pot dictator and revolutionary group on the planet. We turn a blind eye while corrupt regimes divert aid money and development funds - as it suits our "strategic interests". We turn a blind eye to - or at most offer mild criticism of - oppression and abuses of all type. We all buy electronic goods, foodstuffs and sports wear produced by child labour in little more than slave conditions. We're all complicit in these things and many more. And why? To preserve our own standard of living. Time the bleeding heart liberals woke up and smelled the coffee. It's a dog eat dog world on every level. Anyone who thinks "it'll all be alright if everyone was just nice to eachother" whilst perpetuating the status quo, is being dishonest with themselves. We are just as dirty as anyone else in this world, we've no more right to the "moral high ground" than Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot! Those who come out on top in this world are those who carry the biggest stick - and are prepared to use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 In the meantime - The European Court of Human Rights has blocked Britain from extraditing Abu Qatada an alleged top aide of Osama bin Laden to Jordan, saying evidence against him may have been obtained through torture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I hope the evidence was extracted through torture and I hope it bloody well hurt too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Not a question of being "nice to each other" - I could go along with your dog eat dog arguement if those who support it were prepared to live by it. Alas, both Nations and individuals tend to be hypocritical on the subject, and of course, in order to remain "civilized" and not succumb to anarchy, we rely on "the law" and an elected Government to preserve order - which tends to reduce anxiety and stress in the long run! And of course, we do suffer from a collective hypocricy - EG: We can't deport known terrorists in case they may be tortured, but the US can extradite British citizens who they accuse of crimes in the US. US soldiers can kill the Taliban, but are not allowed to urinate on their dead bodies - all rather confusing eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Pity we didn't extradite this disgrace to his uniform,a nd his colleagues from the BBC "The final US Marine to face charges over the killing of unarmed Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005 has pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty. Sgt Frank Wuterich was one of eight Marines charged with murder or failure to investigate the killings, but now faces just three months in jail...... ......Among the dead were women, children and elderly people, including a man in a wheelchair. His former squad members testified during the hearings that they did not receive any incoming gunfire during nor find any weapons at the scene of the killings." Just the way to win hearts and minds sarge ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 As Gen Westmorland said in Viet-Nam: "I intend to grab the insurgents by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" - and we know how that one ended! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 As Gen Westmorland said in Viet-Nam: "I intend to grab the insurgents by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" - and we know how that one ended! . Vietnam and the My Lai massacre 500 dead. Lt Calley sentenced to life for 22 counts of murder - commuted, by Tricky Dicky Nixon, to 3 years house arrest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 The privilages of Empire! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.