Natwest Three/Enron Case get stranger...

[Xena]

Only if you break the law or tried to defraud Enron and shareholders of millions of dollars

Mailman

Look tulip for brains, it means you can do something in your own country that is perfectly legal there but not in the US (e.g. run an on-line gambling site) but you can be extradited to the US to stand trial because your emails were routed through the US or, bizarrely, because one of your customers is in the US.

[BobTheCrate]

Well **** did I write the law? Allah, Im only telling you what I read in .. blah blah blah

In other words you don't know. You don't even have the foggiest idea.

Why aren't we surprised.

You praise to the sky anti-terrorism legislation which has on more than one occasion been used arbitrarily for non terrorist matters.

When pushed for the reasons why the anti-terror legislation is better for non terrorist crimes, it transpires either you haven't got a clue or just don't want to say.

It's probably that you just don't care in the slightest.

[bogeyman]

In other words you don't know. You don't even have the foggiest idea. [snip] It's probably that you just don't care in the slightest.

LIVE FROM LAS VEGAS

Following a feeble jab from Mailman, Bob places a bone-crunching right to the chin, and Mailman goes down like the sack of sh1t he is! 10, 9, 8...

[Mailman]

Look tulip for brains, it means you can do something in your own country that is perfectly legal there but not in the US (e.g. run an on-line gambling site) but you can be extradited to the US to stand trial because your emails were routed through the US or, bizarrely, because one of your customers is in the US.

ACTUALLY sh1t for brains, white collar crime isnt legal in England...just that you guys have a serious fraud unit that couldnt organise a p1ss up in a brothel!

Id probably agree with you guys about these guys being wrongfully "rendered" to America BUT they WENT TO AMERICA with the specific intent of defrauding Enron, Natwest and Enron shareholders. THEY did that off their own back, no one elses.

These three ARENT victims of a victimless crime...they are criminals and will no doubt pay a price for their greed.

Only the ignorant and blatantly anti-american see these guys as innocent

Mailman

[Mailman]

You praise to the sky anti-terrorism legislation which has on more than one occasion been used arbitrarily for non terrorist matters.

When pushed for the reasons why the anti-terror legislation is better for non terrorist crimes, it transpires either you haven't got a clue or just don't want to say.

Well then come on know it all, do please bless us with your intimate knowledge of English law and advise which act they should have used to render these guys to America instead of the legislation that was passed in place of previous extradition laws

Mailman

[NickIT]

ACTUALLY sh1t for brains, white collar crime isnt legal in England...just that you guys have a serious fraud unit that couldnt organise a p1ss up in a brothel!

Id probably agree with you guys about these guys being wrongfully "rendered" to America BUT they WENT TO AMERICA with the specific intent of defrauding Enron, Natwest and Enron shareholders. THEY did that off their own back, no one elses.

These three ARENT victims of a victimless crime...they are criminals and will no doubt pay a price for their greed.

Only the ignorant and blatantly anti-american see these guys as innocent

Mailman

It is not a question of thier guilt or innocence but rather the use of a extradition treaty that -

a - was never debated in the House nor voted on in the House

b - has not been ratified in the US

c - that the US needs to only say that they suspect a crime has been commited. The US is not under obligation to provide any evidence whatsoever. Just that a person is suspect of a crime.

d - that is looser than the EU/US treat

[The Master]

ACTUALLY sh1t for brains, white collar crime isnt legal in England...just that you guys have a serious fraud unit that couldnt organise a p1ss up in a brothel!

I have to agree with Xena here, Mailman does have tulip for brains.

Since when has running an on-line gambling site in the UK been "white collar crime"?

[BobTheCrate]

Well then come on know it all, do please bless us with your intimate knowledge of English law and advise which act they should have used to render these guys to America instead of the legislation that was passed in place of previous extradition laws

Oooerr that's difficult. Errr ... the UK has long had an extradition treaty with the USA used for extraditing defendents. What was so wrong with that extradition legislation ?

I'm not the one praising the use of anti-terror legislation to extradite non-terrorist defendents - you are, as well you know.

It is you who claims this new anti-terror legislation used for non-terrorist extradition is better than the previous existing legislation for non-terrorist crimes - but it turns out you cannot even attempt to qualify why this is.

Some are saying the new legislation is quicker & more efficient than the previous, because no evidence is required to extradite.

You claim you haven't the foggiest idea why the new legislation is better, but then argue that evidence is required under the new legislation.

Either you do know the merits of the new legislation or you don't know - which is it ?

[CommitmentISnotANissue]

Nice!

[Mailman]

c - that the US needs to only say that they suspect a crime has been commited. The US is not under obligation to provide any evidence whatsoever. Just that a person is suspect of a crime.

I know this is probably difficult for you to understand but Uncle Sam cannot just turn up and demand for someone like Chico to be handed over...they still have to present evidence that something naughty was done. Probably a hard concept for you to understand BUT do at least try

Say after me "UNCLE SAME STILL HAS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE A CRIME WAS COMMITTED"...and keep saying that until it sinks in to that thick skull of yours

Mailman