MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

carpetmojo · 03-16-2012, 05:07 AM

Re: the extradition treaty, sorry to be so long-winded, but.....

"BALANCE OF THE US-UK EXTRADITION TREATY

187. The perceived lack of reciprocity in the Treaty relates largely to whether each party is required to present a prima facie case before extradition takes place. When the United Kingdom requests extradition from the United States, the Treaty requires that the UK provide "such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested." There is no such requirement for the US when requesting extradition of a person from the UK. When debating the Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003, which brought the Extradition Act into force, the then Home Office Minister, Baroness Scotland of Asthall QC, said that:

"If this order is approved, the United States will no longer be required to supply prima facie evidence to accompany extradition requests that it makes to the United Kingdom. This is in line with the new bilateral extradition treaty signed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary earlier this year.

By contrast, when we make extradition requests to the United States we shall need to submit sufficient evidence to establish "probable cause". "

Prior to 2003, both countries had to provide prima facie proof, and it needed to be illegal in both countries.
---------
Co-incidentally, I have only just read that the serviceman allegedly involved in the awful recent innocent deaths in Afghanistan has been flown back to US, and that the Afghan government, perhaps not surprisingly in view of the nature of the incident, feel he should be tried there.
Now I know the cases vary hugely in import and seriousness, and realise that there may be provisos existing that make miliary cases different, but I was rather taken aback by the basics of the situation.
It seems fairly certain, both for, I presume, humanitarian as well as political expediency, that this incident will recieve relatively speedy - and publicised ? - resolution.
In the US.

03-16-2012, 05:07 AM	#21
carpetmojo Wizard Posts: 3,117 Karma: 9269999 Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: UK Device: Sony- T3, PRS650, 350, T1/2/3, Paperwhite, Fire 8.9,Samsung Tab S 10.5	Re: the extradition treaty, sorry to be so long-winded, but..... "BALANCE OF THE US-UK EXTRADITION TREATY 187. The perceived lack of reciprocity in the Treaty relates largely to whether each party is required to present a prima facie case before extradition takes place. When the United Kingdom requests extradition from the United States, the Treaty requires that the UK provide "such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested." There is no such requirement for the US when requesting extradition of a person from the UK. When debating the Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003, which brought the Extradition Act into force, the then Home Office Minister, Baroness Scotland of Asthall QC, said that: "If this order is approved, the United States will no longer be required to supply prima facie evidence to accompany extradition requests that it makes to the United Kingdom. This is in line with the new bilateral extradition treaty signed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary earlier this year. By contrast, when we make extradition requests to the United States we shall need to submit sufficient evidence to establish "probable cause". " Prior to 2003, both countries had to provide prima facie proof, and it needed to be illegal in both countries. --------- Co-incidentally, I have only just read that the serviceman allegedly involved in the awful recent innocent deaths in Afghanistan has been flown back to US, and that the Afghan government, perhaps not surprisingly in view of the nature of the incident, feel he should be tried there. Now I know the cases vary hugely in import and seriousness, and realise that there may be provisos existing that make miliary cases different, but I was rather taken aback by the basics of the situation. It seems fairly certain, both for, I presume, humanitarian as well as political expediency, that this incident will recieve relatively speedy - and publicised ? - resolution. In the US.