Reply With QuoteWe have a retarded system which allows Brits to be deported to America if they did something while living in the UK which is illegal in the US and legal in the UK.Originally Posted by tluassa
So you can't ship goods to whomever you wish? I never understood the "You get to be free, but if you interact with someone who could be our enemy, you are in trouble" deal.
We have a retarded system which allows Brits to be deported to America if they did something while living in the UK which is illegal in the US and legal in the UK.
Do you live in a cave?
Have a read of UNSCR 1747, or google 'Iran + sanctions', and then see who you think will come through your door after you ship anything to do with weaponry to Iran. UNSCR 1747 has been in place for going on 5 years now, it is not enough for Mr. Tappin to claim his rights are being violated, or that as the handling company he bears no responsibility to vet what he ships. In particular to hostile states. If he has nothing to hide, as I don't think he has yet stated (which would be telling), he has nothing to worry about and will be able to lodge a nice compensation claim to kick off his retirement when he returns.
Actually the system is retarded because of the nuances of extradition. There is no requirement for US authorities to divulge the evidence they have against a UK citizen during the extradition process, whereas the UK needs to show it's evidence against a US citizen in court to achieve the same result in reverse.
This is retarded indeed.
If he sold secerts to a potential enemy then he should be punished. However I agree there is double standards with the extraction agreement which I believe the government is looking into. I'm all for mutual co-operation but the co-operation must go both ways.
I don't have my knickers in a twist nor did I mean to cause any offence Hollis. Merely expressing an opinion questioning if the whole affair is worth it or not. I never implied the FBI or ATF for that matter had let anyone off I was just trying put things into perspective. Sorry for the confusion.
No problem, After going through 3 pages of google on this. Basically it is Mr. Tappin and friends statements. Something to note, is the Magistrate and the High Court OKed the extradition. I don't know much about the UK court system. I would think that Mr. Tappin would have won his appeal if there was obvious errors in it. Or, under the treaty that is what they where suppose to do.
In the past we have had a lot of the trial by the internet and media where it looks like it is one thing completely different than the finding of fact in the actual court case.
If he is innocent, I would hope for a speedy trial and a finding of innocent.
The Tory review found there was nothing wrong with it, while the JCHR conclusion was British citizens need the same protection as US citizens.
CMNot summed it up nicely. The treaty is somewhat lopsided (it was renegotiated post 9/11 I believe, to expedite extradition of terror suspects to the US), in that the US is not required to provide a great deal of evidence when asking for someone to be extradited.
That needs to be fixed. Same requirements for both parties.
No, no German may be extradited to another country. It is forbidden by our Constitution (Art. 16 Basic Law), it has been watered down for the European arrest warrant and International Courts though.
Is it the same conditions or is theirs based on evidence? That's what they were bitchin about on BBC, the Americans only have to request someone, not provide evidence. Of course it doesn't work in reverse, that would mean "you are not with us but against us"
Wouldn't the cort only have granted that there was a request and stamped it basically? There is no evidence or trial or jury.
x2, that was what I was thinking too.
Posting Permissions
