3 ms·

If US laws regarding whistleblowers are indeed unjust, he will have opportunity to argue that in the UK during judicial review. The UK refuses plenty of US extr

If US laws regarding whistleblowers are indeed unjust, he will have opportunity to argue that in the UK during judicial review. The UK refuses plenty of US extradition requests - far more than the US rate of refusal for UK extradition requests in fact. The UK will not extradite him if he doesn’t get a free trial and the US is perfectly capable of providing one. He will then have plenty of opportunity to argue before a jury why he should not be convicted. The notion that he is somehow above legal process and a strongman politician should step in to stop him facing due process is ludicrous, as well as the stupid idea that the UK is some sort of lapdog for daring to dispassionately follow legal procedure regardless of the celebrity of the accused. The fact that he is facing normal legal process where he wouldn’t in many countries where the legal system is politicised is a feather in the cap of the UK.

lucb1e 7y ago
That does sound reasonable. I am not very familiar with extradition-related laws. Reading the Wikipedia article about extradition, it does not mention judicial reviews (I'm not sure what those are), and while it briefly discusses the considerations involved in whether to allow extradition, it does not mention that it comes before any sort of court for review or so. From my perspective, it's mainly a political question (by politicians, or perhaps (I don't know) government organisations that are not independent courts, e.g. similar to the rubber stamping secret courts in the USA for national security letters) and not so much a "does the pursued trial even make sense in our eyes" kind of question weighed by an impartial judge, but from your comment, I understand that this is actually the case and it does come before court and people have a reasonable chance of not being extradited if they did something that we find acceptable in Europe?
- foldr 7y ago
  > it does come before court Yes, it comes before a court. >people have a reasonable chance of not being extradited if they did something that we find acceptable in Europe? Correct.

lucb1e 7y ago

That does sound reasonable. I am not very familiar with extradition-related laws. Reading the Wikipedia article about extradition, it does not mention judicial reviews (I'm not sure what those are), and while it briefly discusses the considerations involved in whether to allow extradition, it does not mention that it comes before any sort of court for review or so. From my perspective, it's mainly a political question (by politicians, or perhaps (I don't know) government organisations that are not independent courts, e.g. similar to the rubber stamping secret courts in the USA for national security letters) and not so much a "does the pursued trial even make sense in our eyes" kind of question weighed by an impartial judge, but from your comment, I understand that this is actually the case and it does come before court and people have a reasonable chance of not being extradited if they did something that we find acceptable in Europe?

foldr 7y ago
> it does come before court Yes, it comes before a court. >people have a reasonable chance of not being extradited if they did something that we find acceptable in Europe? Correct.