Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
The argument is that the standard of proof required is not the same in the two directions.
It is much easier for the US to get extradition of a UK citizen than vice versa.
|
No standard of proof as such is required from the US authorities, only a reasonable possibility of a court case - no requirement of guilt is needed.So no piracy has to be proved before getting him over there.
He and his family have always been perfectly content for him to be taken to court in the UK - if he was believed to be breaking any law anywhere - as the supposed offense was allegedly committed in the UK.But that would mean the authorities would have to prove he was doing something illegal in UK law, and any possible sanctions/punishment would be nowhere near as draconian as provided for in US law.
[ And this is but the latest in a series of extraditions for a variety of alleged illegal activities not carried out in the US.]
And it would not work in reverse in an exactly reciprocal manner.....
"...If a US citizen in the US breaks an English law over the net...she would also get extradited to England...."
Not necessarily so - firstly, the burden of proof of guilt is so much higher, and secondly, only certain crimes would be considered.
And can you honestly see the US public being happy about an American citizen being extradited to UK for doing something, in the US, that was not illegal in the US ?
Finally, and I profess no detailed knowledge here, his has always said his site was a "signpost" site - which is what Google is, surely. You may assume otherwise, but no facts have come out about anything more involved.
I still cannot understand how Google can, apparently legally, point the way to the same sites, but not this individual.
Ah, yes, Google is bigger, isn't it...