TVShack....

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

There is nothing in the case about British IP vs American IP.

I didn't know that. In that case I find it weird that the UK doesn't have laws that make this sort of behaviour illegal.


Apparently the website was also guilty of streaming content. There's more to it than just the claims of innocent 'linking'.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

To add to my second post in this thread, I have unearthed a transcript of a similar situation where the UK would like to extradite a US citizen;
President Obama: Would extraditing one of our citizens make us look weak to our electorate? And do we give a s**t what the UK think?
Civil Servant: 'Yes' and 'No' respectively.
President Obama: Thought so. Tell 'em to go swivel!

Again................


But.... in reply/clarification to posters like howyoudoin, I may be guilty (oops) of not making myself sufficiently clear.

I really have no strong thoughts, apart from failing to see differences between his activity and, say, Google,and wouldn't pronounce yay or nay on guilt or innocence of any of these cases.

I simply bring out the total unfairness of the whole procedure, that the US legal system seems intent on using to the limit, whilst not agreeing that UK law can use the same procedure, which requires different evidential requirements.

And while we are at it, I may as well get another thing of me chest - I believe we still have, after all these years, a citizen in Guantanamo Bay, uncharged, untried, and with no details of any supposed guilt being given to the world.
And he's not alone ......
After Mr. Obama told us the blot that was this establishment would be closed down......

Sorry, fairly mild rant, more a complaint, over.........

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

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...

Not quite, but nearly. Google has more money, and is based in the US.

[Toxaris]

Originally Posted by markbot

If a US citizen in the US breaks an English law over the net...she would also get extradited to England.

Not true. The US has stated several times that they will not extradite its citizens, whatever the reason.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Toxaris

Not true. The US has stated several times that they will not extradite its citizens, whatever the reason.

The US really only has two strong allies left in the world, the UK and Canada. And it appears to be doing its best to tick off the populations of both of them over the last few years. It could be a lonely world in a while.

[carpetmojo]

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.

[howyoudoin]

Wikipedia suggests there's no imbalance.

There has been criticism of the Extradition Act 2003 in the UK in respect of the cases of Gary McKinnon and the NatWest Three.[19] In particular, the Act has been criticised for reducing the level of evidence required for extradition from the UK to US from prima facie evidence to 'reasonable suspicion', and for allowing extradition to proceed on the basis of offences in US, rather than UK law. In addition, the standard of proof required for extradition from the US to UK is different, in accordance with the Fourth Amendment – the standard of 'probable cause'.

When in opposition the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats criticised the Extradition Act 2003 and in September 2010 Home Secretary Theresa May an independent review of all extradition arrangements was begun.[16] The review, completed in September 2011, concluded that the 'reasonable suspicion' and 'probable cause' tests had 'no significant difference', and that there was no imbalance in this respect. Moreover, the UK extradition procedure was found to be more elaborate, and more difficult to achieve, than that from the US. In respect of the NatWest Three, the report noted that the extradition evidence had been prepared according to the standards of the pre-2003 Treaty, and that was therefore no grounds to criticise the 2003 Treaty in respect of this case.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O'Dwyer

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

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.

That's an interesting one. India is currently in the process of trying two Italian soldiers in Indian courts. My guess is that being an occupied country, Afghanistan is not in position to enforce a trial in the country where the crime was committed.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

That's an interesting one. India is currently in the process of trying two Italian soldiers in Indian courts. My guess is that being an occupied country, Afghanistan is not in position to enforce a trial in the country where the crime was committed.

The US has repeatedly made it clear that it will never allow its active duty servicemen to be subject to the laws of other countries. That is also why it will not join the International Criminal Court.

[markbot]

Originally Posted by Toxaris

Not true. The US has stated several times that they will not extradite its citizens, whatever the reason.

Please provide supporting evidence.