Natwest Three/Enron Case get stranger...

[Mailman]

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 ?

Obviously a lot if there was a perceived need to change it, which is what happened.

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

Actually, neither am I. All Im saying is that this is the legislation now in place to extradite people to America.

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.

No, all Im saying is...that this is the legislation now in place to extradite people to America

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

And those people are incorrect BECAUSE Uncle Sam still has to present proof that something naughty was done

Mailman

[NickIT]

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

Great. Another member of the illustrious 101st Keyboard Warriors.

Not that you are actually capable of reading/comprehension but I am sure you can find someone to read this article to you very slowly and clearly.

The one unarguable consequence of the 2003 Act is that there is now an imbalance in the extradition arrangements in force between Britain and the US.

The US government needs only to outline the alleged offence, the punishment specified by statute and provide an accurate description of the suspect sought.

To extradite from the US, Britain must prove "probable cause".


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4738760.stm

[Tex]

Those others are right, Mailman, you really do have tulip for brains, don't you?

From Jon Silverman's legal affairs analysis:

The one unarguable consequence of the 2003 Act is that there is now an imbalance in the extradition arrangements in force between Britain and the US.

The US government needs only to outline the alleged offence, the punishment specified by statute and provide an accurate description of the suspect sought.

To extradite from the US, Britain must prove "probable cause".

To extradite someone from the UK, all Uncle Sam has to provide is a statement saying "we suspect X was involved in the Enron fraud as an alleged insider dealer. This is punishable by a maximum federal penalty of 20 years imprisonment and the suspect is a caucasian male, mid-40s, brown hair, etc."

To extradite someone from the US, John Bull has to provide an outline of the case plus the evidence, which has to be of a prima facie standard.

[Tex]

Curse you, NickIT, you beat me to it.

[NickIT]

Curse you, NickIT, you beat me to it.

I think your summation is better however!

[sasguru]

He he! Mailman makes a serious attempt at winning the "Village Idiot" crown yet again. Probably his strongest attempt yet.
Are we supposed to believe this cretin is a "Big Hitter" in Docklands?

[Tex]

I think your summation is better however!

You are too kind, NickIT. Your summation was funnier though.

[NickIT]

You are too kind, NickIT. Your summation was funnier though.

Thank you Tex.

You should see me in action when I am really riled!

[The Lone Gunman]

Get a room, please!!!!!!!

[Mailman]

He he! Mailman makes a serious attempt at winning the "Village Idiot" crown yet again. Probably his strongest attempt yet.
Are we supposed to believe this cretin is a "Big Hitter" in Docklands?

Yeah well I f*cked your momma last night

Mailman