Extraditing terrorists

[snaw]

Where have you been all this time? We are America's poodle and will jump through hoops if asked.

That's what concerns me most about this, it's so one sided and quite clearly unfair. Maybe if this right was recipracle I could be persuaded to see the relevence to extraditing non terrorists. And these guys didn't even commit a crime against a US bank (Quite clearly they appear to have defrauded Natwest though).

[DaveB]

but wtf has this to do with terrorism, and why can't we do the same back?

It doesnt, but to quote another article on the BBC

"The US justice system has a long and aggressive extra-territorial reach, and will increasingly apply for the extradition of UK citizens for allegedly criminal conduct committed against UK institutions."

"There appear to be no legal protections against this at all."

and we cant do the same because :

The judgement marks the first test case in the UK under the government's Extradition Act 2003 - which was developed in the wake of the 11 September attacks in 2001.

"..the treaty has created an "unequal" balance between the US and UK, as the US is not required to provide "primae facie" evidence of wrongdoing to extradite a UK citizen.

However, British requests to the US must still provide evidence of "probable cause".

[sasguru]

Yet Natwest management aren't bringing any charges against them - I'm more worried about the precedent it sets. Fair enough forcing through legislation to help nail terrorists - but wtf has this to do with terrorism, and why can't we do the same back?

Where have you been all this time? We are America's poodle and will jump through hoops if asked.

[snaw]

As far as I can make out they persuaded Nat West senior (mis)management to sell it's stake in an Enron subsiduary company they had an interest in for less than market valuation. They then bought into the company themselves and sold it on at a profit of $7 Million and change.

Yet Natwest management aren't bringing any charges against them - I'm more worried about the precedent it sets. Fair enough forcing through legislation to help nail terrorists - but wtf has this to do with terrorism, and why can't we do the same back?

[sasguru]

Enron shareholder by an chance Sas?

No something else I cannot disclose.

[DaveB]

Well yes extradition to the US is probably wrong - but in this case I don't care. I hope they meet Bubba when bending over to pick up the sopa in the shower

Enron shareholder by an chance Sas?

[sasguru]

Well yes extradition to the US is probably wrong - but in this case I don't care. I hope they meet Bubba when bending over to pick up the soap in the shower

[threaded]

Anyone who thinks any of the laws being made using the excuse of terrorism are anything even remotely connected to terrorism is a big fool.

[DaveB]

Not exactly sure why these guys are getting extradited, but it seems very wrong to me ...

British Bankers

As far as I can make out they persuaded Nat West senior (mis)management to sell it's stake in an Enron subsiduary company they had an interest in for less than market valuation. They then bought into the company themselves and sold it on at a profit of $7 Million and change.

They are now being extradited on fraud charges. The fraud charges are quite correct and there is a link to the US with the Enron case *but* there is no real reason I can see that they couldnt be charged and tried in the UK, since that is where the offence took place.

As the article says, the US can apply for extradition of any UK citizen without having to show probable cause. The UK still has to show this before it can even think about trying to extradite a US citizen.

[snaw]

Maybe, but why are they getting extradited to the US, under the terrorism extradition treaty, for financial crimes commited against a British bank?

Especially given we can't do the same to a US citizen ...

[sasguru]

I hope they stick 'em in jail and throw away the key ....sorry it's personal.

[snaw]

Not exactly sure why these guys are getting extradited, but it seems very wrong to me ...

British Bankers

The case of the three bankers falls under UK legislation in force since January 2004 that was designed to speed up the transfer of suspected terrorists to the United States.

Under treaty, the United States is able to demand a Briton's extradition without having to provide any evidence, although Britain has to prove its case in a U.S. court to extradite U.S. citizens to the United Kingdom.

The three, who worked for NatWest Bank, now part of Royal Bank of Scotland , are alleged to have conspired with Enron executives, including former Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow, over the sale of a stake in an Enron entity in 2000, which made them $7.3 million (4 million pounds).

Mulgrew, speaking outside the court said: "We are shocked by the verdict." It was a worrying development for many people, he said.

Bermingham told reporters the case would have a profound impact not just on the three but on many others who are also facing extradition proceedings.

"Regrettably it seems that this government is quite content to use its own citizens as political currency to curry favour with another government," he said. "For the first time in my life I am ashamed to be British."

The former bankers, who deny the fraud allegations, had insisted they should face trial in Britain. They also claim the U.S. government is trying to extradite them only to bolster its case against other Enron defendants.

At a November appeal hearing in the case, Lord Justice John Laws and Justice Duncan Ouseley questioned why the U.S. government wanted to extradite the men when they are accused of defrauding a Royal Bank of Scotland unit, Greenwich NatWest, rather than Enron.

British business leaders have complained that the United States is abusing the treaty to target white-collar criminals.