MP's reviewing the woefully lopsided extradtion with US

In Tony Blair's time and his governement which was a poodle lot to Geore "W", they passed an agreement with the US on extradition between the 2 countries. However there is now an increasing furure as it is seen to be not only woefully one-side but totally illogical and un-democratic to our citizens. Twice as many have gone from here to America than the other way round. In addition the latest case is causing much resentment due to a young man who hacked into the US military computers looking for Aliens from outer space. And we all know how vengeful the US legal system is?This young man happens to be an Asperger's sufferer. The main point however, is that the USA does NOT have to give any evidence they can demand and get! Another recent item was another young person the US wanted on an internet infringment even though th matter is not a crime here.

The Asperger's sufferer is raising indignation not only with the general public in campaigns but now by MP's at Westminster and not before time. To have an extradition treaty that just plays to whatever the US wants and demands even without supplying evidence is an infringment on citizens here. It needs to be changed and pronto. It is another reason why Blair ended up being a pariah here and is very unpopular.

I don't understand exactly what's happening. If the UK extraditing criminals back to the US but not vice/versa or something?

A little more detail would help. Has the UK asked the US to send wanted men back to the UK and been refused??? It might be simple size differences. The US is considerably larger than the UK, therefore we might have twice as many bad guys needing to be sent back home to face charges.

The most important point which you should take note of mjsmsprt40 is the fact and is that it is a one-sided agreement? This was carried off by Bush's bosom buddy Tony Blair who couldn't do enough due to his pyscophantic relationship. Your point is of secondary importance to the main point - serious imbalance which I would have thought was put simply here and easy to understand?

In simple terms, if the US wants someone they will get him without supplying any evidence whatsover. They demand a British subject here be extradited, again simply, they will get. That doesn't happen the other way round (the US would never agree to such!) and that Blair and the last government got away with that is a wholesale disgrace. Hopefully there will be big enough noise not just from the media but in parliament now that MP's are taking up the cudgel. It is a basic infringement of rights of citizens here who couldn't be done without evidence. This was Blair and company showing their supoort as an ally and how ridiculous is that? As I say, it is no small wonder that Blair and the last Labour government left under a cloud. Blair is not very popular here at all these days and thius is one of his legacies.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

mjsmsprt40

Do you see? It's not hard to write it correctly.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

mjsmsprt40

Do you see? It's not hard to write it correctly.

Nope, he still got it wrong. Just not as wrong.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

mjsmsprt40

Do you see? It's not hard to write it correctly.

Nope, he still got it wrong. Just not as wrong.

Oh yes, I notice it now... sorry mjmsprt40 for my extemporaneous post...

Originally posted by rjhowie:

In simple terms, if the US wants someone they will get him without supplying any evidence whatsover. They demand a British subject here be extradited, again simply, they will get.

OK. Yeah, both sides of the the treaty need to be able to produce evidence for it to be fair

You should probably provide your Dail Mail link, Mr. Howie.
That would help most people on here. (I happen to know exactly what you are talking about though, having read it on the Beeb a while back)

Perhaps if GB had a more reasonable form of government… Nah. They like their system; like they like the National Health: No matter how poorly it works! (But they're welcome to them!) Should they wish to revisit whatever extradition treaties are in place, they –of course– can; and should.

BTW: Has the bounder that jacked the e-mails from East Anglia been apprehended yet?

Oh, I well appreciate the Daily Mail thedawgfan and much to give credit for but you are being perverse as it happens- but don't let education get in the way of common sense. It is standard practice to condemn any newspaper outside of the failing Guardian in a sniffy way. Even when such a paper as the Mail is correct one gets a grudging acknowledgement. As it happens that paper cannot work in isolation dear smarty pants (I must in fairness, add mjmsprt40 and Belfrager in that description).

There are 3 main tv stations here called the BBC, ITN, Sky News (surprise, surprise!) plus one regular foreign station with permanent 24 news too. That network also interviewed MP'sThis will come as surprise to those that like to use the Daily Mail as some daft sneering answer instead of facing factual. And what do you know, it was on all three. Indeed all had an indepth discussion on it, MP's interviewed as well. Dear, oh dear, you clowns.

The only one here who got the situation and has acknowledged it, is Sanguinemoon. This Law was passed after 9/11 by that sycophantic Tony Blair, who had a majority in parliament at the time and universally disliked hence getting out of being Prime Minister and making dosh. The conditions allow the USA to get our citizens without any proof at all. On our side if we want an American citizen we must produce proof or we don't get him. We now have 9 cases fighting this. The passing one I mentioned involving the net was a young man who was providing a service for pirates to use. Not a crime here as it happens. However the leading case which is a campaign here is that young man with Asperger's looking for info on UFO's. People want him tried here with evidence rather than send him somewhere where the law is so harsh. It was never right for this to be one-sided and only one country have to give proof, namely us.

Both the Conservative and Liberal Democrats were strongly for this Treaty being re-done on opposition so we all expect as they are both in government to get this damnable Treaty re-worded.

Here's the BBC article on it. He thought the US was suppressing evidence of UFOs and hacked into 97 US military/NASA computers. Ouch.

This may be one case where I'll agree with RJ. Will wonders never cease?

Fact is, President Bush had a bit of a problem with the Bill of Rights, and really thought they should be rescinded. This case we're looking at now is one point where he was able, at least partially, to force his point through. The Patriot Act was another bit of bad law based on Mr Bush's rather warped view of civil rights. Eventually we can hope these bad laws will either be shelved or modified to make them work better than they do now.

Really bad part: GWB announced his view of the Bill of Rights BEFORE he was elected president--- and whether by hook or by crook he got elected anyway. I don't want to start yet another endless round of debates over whether the 2000 elections were stolen--- that's been done to death and the fact remains that Bush was elected and served two terms, and while there got to pass, either through Congress or by Executive Order, some very questionable laws--- the Extradition agreement with the UK being one of them. Now it remains for saner heads to review these laws and make the necessary changes.

Well said there.